t 


^ . V;.  , 

. 


. 

- 

- 


- 

■ 

' 

. 


' ' 

* 

' 

- 

' 

■ ' 


. 


' ■ / . : ' 

' „ - 

■ - 


w ■ . ■■  ■ . 


' 


: ‘ . ‘ * ' -.1  * • • _ 


George  JV ashington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 


DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 

COLONEL  FLOWERS 


. • ..‘5  • 

- • 

■ 


. 


1 


BBIH! 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofnav01ever 


FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 

GIDEON  WELLES 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  NAVY,  1861-1869 


PROCEEDINGS 

if 


OF  A 


IN  THE  CASE  OF 


UNITED  STATES  NAVY/ 


CHARGED  WITH 


ASSAULT  WITH  INTENT  TO  KILL  JAMES  O’NEILL,  A FIREMAN  OF  THE  BRITISH 
STEAMER  NICHOLAS  I,  AND  WITH  MALTREATMENT  AND  CRUELTY. 


WASHINGTON  : 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1 8 6 4. 


> , 
. . 


■ 


■ 


INDEX 


o 


trc. 


i ^ 


3 


TO  THE 

RECORD  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NAVAL  GENERAL  COURT-MARTIAL  FOR 
THE  TRIAL  OF  ACTING  MASTER  ALFRED  EVERSON. 


Precept  and  orders  for  constituting  the  court 

Order  appointing  the  judge  advocate 

First  day,  Wednesday,  September  14,  1864 

Precept  and  orders  read 

Accused  has  no  exception  or  challenge  to  the  court 

Members  of  the  court  sworn 

Judge  advocate  sworn - 

Postponement  asked  for  by  accused  and  granted 

Charges  and  specifications  read  lo  accused 

Copy  of  charges  and  specifications 

Second  day,  Thursday,  September  15,  1864 

Authority  granted  to  court  to  adjourn  during  postponement 

Third  day,  Monday,  September  19,  1S64 

Accused  called  on  to  plead 

Plea,  not  guilty 

James  B.  Craig,  esq.,  introduced  as  counsel  for  accused 

■James  O'Neill  sworn  and  examined  for  prosecution 

Testimony  in  chief  of  James  O’Neill 

Fourth  day,  Tuesday,  September  20,  1864 

Cross-examination  of  James  O’Neill 

Fifth  day,  Wednesday,  September  21,  1864 

Thomas  Gernon  sworn  and  examined  for  prosecution 

Examination  in  chief  of  Thomas  Gernon 

Sixth  day,  Thursday,  September  22,  1864 

Cross-examination  of  Thomas  Gernon  

Re-examination  of  Thomas  Gernon 

Seventh  day,  Friday,  September  23,  1864 

Re-cross-examination  of  Thomas  Gernon 

Michael  Murphy  sworn  and  examined  for  prosecution 

Examination  in  chief  of  Michael  Murphy 

Eighth  day,  Saturday,  September  24,  1864 

Ninth  day,  Monday,  September  26,  1S64 

Cross-examination  of  Michael  Murphy 

Re-examination  of  Michael  Murphy 

Tenth  day,  Tuesday,  September  27,  1864 

Decree  of  condemnation  of  the  Nicholas  I as  prize  read  in  evidence 

Testimony  for  the  prosecution  closed 

Acting  Ensign  Charles  II.  Saivyer  sworn  and  examined  for  defence 

Examination  in  chief  of  Charles  H.  Sawyer 

Cross-examination  of  Charles  H.  Sawyer 

Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Edward  Hooker  sworn  and  examined  for  defence 

Examination  in  chief  of  Edward  Hooker 

Cross-examination  of  Edward  Plooker 

Eleventh  day,  Wednesday,  September  28,  1864 

Re-examination  of  Edward  Hooker 


Page. 

1-2 

2 

2-3 


2 

2 

2 

2 


o 

O 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3-8 

4 
4 
4 
4 

4- 10 

5- 13 
10-13 
14-19 

14 

14-22 

19-25 

22-24 

24- 26 

25- 30 
25-27 


27 

27-35 

30-34 

34- 38 

35- 38 
38-39 
3S-45 

39 

40 
40 

40- 41 

41- 43 
44 
44 

44- 46 

45- 50 
46 


IV 


Page. 


Acting  Second  Assistant  Engineer  Thaddeus  D.  Webster  sworn  and  examined  for  defence 

Examination  in  chief  of  Thaddeus  D.  Webster 

Cross-examination  of  Thaddeus  D.  Webster 

Twelfth  day,  Thursday,  September  29,  1S64 

Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs  sworn  and  examined  for  defence 

Examination  in  chief  of  Charles  S.  Boggs 

Cross-examination  of  Charles  S.  Boggs 

Statement  by  acc  used  that  Edward  Mitchell  and  Captain  George  R.  Sclienck  had  been  summoned 

to  testify  as  to  liis  good  character  as  an  officer 

Statement  by  accused  that  Acting  Assistant  Surgeon  James  G.  Parke  had  been  summoned  as  a 

witness  on  his  behalf,  but  was  prevented  from  attending  by  illness 

Statement  by  accused  that  if  judge  advocate  is  willing  to  admit  that  if  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Captain 
Schenck,  if  produced  and  examined,  would  testify  that  his  character  as  an  officer  is  good,  and 
will  also  consent  that  if  Surgeon  Parke  recovers  so  as  to  enable  him  to  be  present  at  any  time 
before  the  defence  is  read,  he  is  ready  to  close  the  evidence  for  the  defence,  with  the  exception 

of  some  documentary  evidence . - - - 

Admission  by  judge  advocate  . — . - - - 

Agreement  by  judge  advocate  that  Surgeon  Parke  may  be  examined  at  any  time  before  the  de- 
fence is  read . — 

Call  upon  judge  advocate  by  accused  to  produce  certain  correspondence 

Correspondence  produced  and  offered  by  accused  in  evidence 

Objection  of  judg  e advocate  to  admission  of  correspondence. — 

Correspondence  admitted  and  read  in  evidence. 

Thirteenth  day,  Friday,  September  30,  1864 

Fourteenth  day,  Saturday,  October  1,  1864 

Fifteenth  day,  Monday,  October  3,  1864 

Further  correspondence  produced  and  offered  by  accused  in  evidence 

Further  correspondence  admitted  and  read  in  evidence 

Further  correspondence  offered  in  evidence  by  judge  advocate,  admitted' and  read 

Sixteenth  day,  Tuesday,  October  4,  1864 

Copy  of  report  of  accused  to  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  December  IS,  1863,  offered  by  the  accused 

and  admitted  and  read  in  evidence 

Note  from  counsel  of  accused,  requesting  postponement 

Reply  of  judge  advocate  to  above  note 

Seventeenth  day,  Wednesday,  October  5,  1864 

Application  and  recommendation  of  accused  for  promotion  offered,  admitted,  and  read  in  evidence 

Evidence  for  defence  closed 

Evidence  on  both  sides  closed 

Defence  of  the  accused  read 

Finding  of  the  court 

Eighteenth  day,  Thursday,  October  6,  1864 

Sentence  of  the  court. 


46 

46-49 

49-52 

51-54 

52 

52 


53 


53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

54 
54 
54 

54 
54-55 

55 
55 

55 

56 

56 

56 

56 
56-57 

57 
57 
57 
57 
57 
57 
57 


APPENDIX. 


Charges  and  specifications 

Telegram  from  Navy  Department  authorizing  court  to  adjourn 59 

Plan  of  the  Nicolai  I,  Exhibit  “A,”  S.  C.  P 59 

Plan  of  the  Nicolai  I,  Exhibit  “B,”  S.  C.  P 59 

Plan  of  the  Nicolai  I,  Exhibit  “ D,”  S.  C.  P 

Decree  of  condemnation  of  the  Nicolai  I as  prize 59-60 

Exhibit  No.  1. — Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles,  May  6,  1864 60 

Exhibit  No.  2. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  April  27,  1S64 60 

Exhibit  No.  3. — Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles,  June  21,  1864 61 

Exhibit  No.  4. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  June  13,  1864 ' 61 

Exhibit  No.  5. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  November  30,  1S63 62 

Exhibit  No.  5 (a.) — British  consul  at  New  York  to  Lord  Lyons,  November  21,  1S63 62 

Exhibit  No.  5 (5.) — Affidavit  of  James  O’Neill,  November  20,  1S63 62-63 

Exhibit  No.  6. — Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  AVelles,  December  1,  1863 64 

Exhibit  No.  7. — Mr.  Welles  to  Mr.  Seward,  December  29,  1863 64 


V 


Page. 

Exhibit  No.  7 (a.) — Rear-Admiral  Lee  to  Mr.  Welles,  October  17,  1863 64 

Exhibit  No.  7 (i.) — Report  of  Captain  Boggs,  March  21,  1863 65 

Exhibit  No.  7 (c  ) — Report  of  Captain  Hooker,  March  22,  1863  65 

Exhibit  No.  7 (d.) — Report  of  Acting  Master  Everson,  March  22,  1863 65 

Exhibit  No.  7 (c.) — Report  of  Acting  Assistant  Surgeon  Parke,  March  22,  1863 66 

Exhibit  No.  7 (/.) — Report  of  Surgeon  Kitchen,  March  22,  1863 66 

Exhibit  No.  7 (^g.) — Rear-Admiral  Lee  to  Mr.  Welles,  December  7,  1863 66 

Exhibit  No.  8. — Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons,  January  11,  1S64 67 

Exhibit  No.  9. — Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles,  Eebruary  3,  1S64 67 

Exhibit  No.  10. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  January  19,  1S64 67-6S 

Exhibit  No.  11. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  April  5,  1S64 6S-69 

Exhibit  No.  12. — Mr.  Welles  to  Mr.  Seward,  June  24,  1864 69 

Exhibit  No.  13. — Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons,  June  27,  1S64 69 

Exhibit  No.  14. — Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles,  July  12,  1864 69 

Exhibit  No.  15. — Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  July  7,  1864 70 

Exhibit  No.  16. — Rear-Admiral  Lee  to  Mr.  Welles,  March  30,  1S64 70 

Exhibit  No.  17. — Report  of  Acting  Master  Everson,  December  IS,  1863 71 

Exhibit  No.  IS. — Note  from  counsel  of  accused  to  judge  advocate,  October  4,  1864  71 

Exhibit  No.  19. — Application  and  recommendation  of  accused  for  promotion 72 

Exhibit  No.  20. — Defence  of  the  accused 72 


, ' i i 

. 


. 


RECORD 


OF  THE 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  A NAVAL  GENERAL  COURT-MARTIAL, 

CONVENED  AT  THE 

NAVY  YARD  AT  NEW  YORK, 


ox 

MONDAY,  THE  TWELFTH  DAY  OF  SEPTEMBER,  IN  THE  YEAR  OF  OUR  LORD  EIGHTEEN 
HUNDRED  AND  SIXTY-FOUR,  BY  VIRTUE  OF  A PRECEPT  SIGNED  BY  THE  HON- 
ORABLE THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  NAVY,  TO  REAR  ADMIRAL  SAMUEL 
L.  BREESE,  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  COURT,  WHICH  IS  IN 
WORDS  AND  FIGURES  AS  FOLLOWS,  TO  WIT: 


Navy  Department,  May  31,  1864. 

By  virtue  of  the  authority  contained  in  the  act  of  Congress,  approved  the  17th  of  July,  A.  D.  1SG2, 
for  the  better  government  of  the  navy  of  the  United  States,  a naval  general  court-martial  is  hereby  ordered 
to  convene  at  the  navy  yard  at  Philadelphia,  on  Tuesday,  the  seventh  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1S64,  or  as  soon 
thereafter  as  practicable,  for  the  trial  of  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Frederick  S.  Hill,  and  of  such  other 
persons  as  may  be  legally  brought  before  it. 

The  cofirt  is  to  be  composed  of  the  following  named  officers,  any  five  of  whom  are  empowered  to  act, 
viz  : Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  Commodore  Thomas  A.  Conner,  Commodore  William  C.  Nicholson, 
Commodore  Andrew  A.  Harwood,  Commander  Edward  M.  Yard,  Lieutenant  James  A.  Doyle,  members  ; and 
Samuel  C.  Perkins,  judge  advocate. 

GIDEON  V ELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  U.  S.  Navy. 

And  also  by  virtue  of  the  orders  contained  in  tlie  letters  of  tbe  honorable  Secretary  of  tlie  Navy  to  Rear- 
Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  tbe  president  of  tbe  court,  wbicb  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows,  to  wit : 

“ Navy  Department,  Washington,  June  24,  1S64. 

“ Sir  : Commodore  Thomas  A.  Conover  will  be  relieved  from  duty  as  a member  of  tbe  general  court- 
martial  of  which  you  are  the  presiding  officer,  and  Commander  E.  W.  Carpeuder  appointed  a member. 

“I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient'  servant, 

“ GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

“ Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese, 

“ President  Naval  General  Court-Martial,  Philadelphia.” 

Navy  Department,  July  12,  1864. 

Sir  : The  naval  general  court-martial,  of  which  you  are  the  presiding  officer,  will  hold  its  future  sittings 
at  the  navy  yard,  New  York,  to  which  place  you  will  adjourn  the  court  upon  your  receipt  of  this  order. 

Commander  E.  W.  Carpeuder  has  been  relieved  from  the  order  to  report  to  you  for  duty,  as  a member  of 
the  court,  and  Commodore  Henry  Eagle,  Captain  James  Glynn,  Commander  George  A.  Prentiss,  and  Lieu- 
tenant B.  N.  Westcott  have  been  appointed  members. 

The  officers  and  others  against  whom  charges  were  transmitted  to  you  will  be  transferred,  with  such 
witnesses  as  are  in  attendance,  to  the  navy  yard  at  New  York,  and  you  will  give  the  necessary  directions’ for 


2 


the  purpose,  continuing’  in  custody  or  close  arrest  those  who  are  now  so  placed.  The  commandants  of  the 
navy  yards  at  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  to  whom  you  will  exhibit  this  order,  will  afford  any  necessary 
assistance  in  the  execution  of  it. 

I am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese, 

President  Naval  General  Court-Martial,  P hila delj)hia. 

Navv  Yard,  New  YorK, 

Monday,  September  12,  1564. 

The  court  convened,  in  pursuance  of  the  foregoing-  precept  and  orders. 

Present,  Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  Commodore  William  C.  Nicholson,  Commodore  Henry  Eagle. 
Captain  James  Glynn,  Lieutenant  James  A.  Doyle,  Lieutenant  Bayse  N.  Westcott,  members ; and  Samuel  C. 
Perkins,  judge  advocate. 

The  court  having  finished  the  trial  of  Acting  Ensign  Stephen  E.  Merrihew,  and  the  usual  hour  of 
adjournment  having  arrived,  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  September  the  thirteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

1 Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Tuesday,  September  13,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  'approved. 

There  being  no  case  ready  for  trial  owing  to  the  non-arrival  of  witnesses,  the  court  thereupon  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  September  14,  1864,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  a.  m. 

FIRST  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Wednesday,  September  14,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  Commodore  William  0.  Nicholson,  Commodore  Henry  Eagle, 
Captain  James  Glynn,  Lieutenant  James  A.  Doyle,  Lieutenant  Bayse  N.  Westcott,  members  ; and  Samuel 
0.  Perkins,  judge  advocate. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  judge  advocate  informed  the  court  that  he  is  now  ready  to  take  up  the  case  of  Acting  Master 
Alfred  Everson ; and  the  said  Alfred  Everson  is  thereupon  brought  into  court,  and  the  requisite  number  of 
members  being  present,  the  judge  advocate  read  aloud  the  precept  and  orders  of  June  the  twenty-fourth  and 
July  the  twelfth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four,  hereinbefore  set  forth;  and  also  an  order  contained  in  a 
letter  from  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  which  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows,  to  wit : 

Navy  Department,  Washington,  May  31,  1864. 

Sir:  A naval  general  court-martial,  of  which  you  are  appointed  judge  advocate,  has  been  ordered  to 
convene  on  Tuesday  next,  June  7,  at  the  navy  yard,  Philadelphia,  at  which  time  and  place,  should  you  accept 
this  appointment,  you  will  appear  and  report  yourself  to  the  presiding  officer  of  the  court. 

I am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Samuel  0.  Perkins,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

And  thereupon  the  judge  advocate  demands  of  the  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  if  he  has  any 
exception  or  cause  of  challenge  against  the  court,  or  any  member  thereof.  To  which  the  said  Alfred  Everson 
makes  answer  in  the  negative. 

The  president  of  the  court,  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  then  administers  to  the  judge  advocate  the 
oath  in  such  case  prescribed  by  the  twelfth  article  in  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  entitled  “ An  act 
for  the  better  government  of  the  navy,”  approved  July  17,  1862. 

And  the  judge  advocate,  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  then  administers  to  the  president  and  members 
of  the  court,  severally  and  respectively,  the  oath  in  such  case  prescribed  by  the  said  act  of  Congress. 


And  the  court  now  being  organized,  the  judge  advocate  reads,  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  the  accused, 
the  charges  and  specifications  of  charges  preferred  against  him  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
the  originals  of  which  are  hereto  annexed,  and  which  are  in  words  as  follows  : 

“ Charges  and  specifications  of  charges  preferred  bij  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  against  Aifrecl  Everson,  an 

Acting  Master  in  the  navy. 

“ Charge  I.  Assault  with  intent  to  hill. 

“ Specification.  In  this : that  on  or  about  the  twenty-first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-three,  on  board  the  captured  steamer  ‘ Nicholas  I,’  off  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting 
Master  Alfred  Everson  assaulted  James  O’Neill,  a fireman  on  board  the  said  vessel,  and,  without  just  cause, 
fired  a pistol,  loaded  with  powder  and  ball,  at  the  said  O’Neill  with  intent  to  kill  him. 

“ Charge  II.  Maltreatment  and,  cruelty. 

“ Specification.  In  this:  that  on  or  about  the  twenty-first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-three,  on  board  the  captured  steamer  ‘ Nicholas  I,’  off  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting 
Master  Alfred  Everson,  intentionally  and  without  just  cause,  fired  a pistol,  loaded  with  powder  and  ball,  at 
James  O’Neill,  one  of  the  crew  of  the  captured  vessel,  thereby  severely  wounding  the  said  O’Neill. 

“GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

“Navy  Department,  Washington , D.  C.,  July  22,  1S64.” 

And  the  accused  being  asked  if  he  is  ready  for  trial,  replies,  that  he  is  not  ready  for  trial ; that  he  has 
employed  the  services  of  counsel  to  assist  him  in  his  defence,  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  his  counsel  to  attend 
before  Monday  next ; and  that  one  of  his  most  important  witnesses  has  not  yet  arrived,  and  he  therefore  re- 
spectfully asks  a postponement  of  his  case  until  Monday. 

The  court,  upon  consideration,  grant  his  request,  and  further  proceedings  in  the  case  are  thereupon  sus- 
pended until  Monday  next,  September  the  nineteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  September  the  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty -four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

SECOND  DAY. 

“ Navy  Yard,  New  York,  Thursday,  September  1-5,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  by  the  judge  advocate,  found  to  be  correct,  and 
approved. 

A copy  of  a telegram  from  Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  president  of  the  court,  to  the  honorable  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  together  with  a telegram  received  in  reply,  the  original  of  which  is  hereto  annexed, 
are  laid  before  the  court,  read  by  the  judge  advocate,  and  are  in  words  and  figures  as  follows,  to  wit : 

“Navy  YArd,  Brooklyn,  September  14,  1S64. 
“Hon.  Gideon  Welles,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C.  : 

“ Counsel  in  the  case  of  Acting  Master  Everson  requiring  delay  until  Monday  next,  and  no  other 
case  ready  for  trial,  permission  is  respectfully  asked  to  adjourn  until  then. 

“ SAMUEL  L.  BREESE.” 

,[  “ Received,  at  269,  Washington  street,  September  14,  1864. — Dated  Washington,  September  14,  1864.] 

“To  Rear-Admiral  Breese,  President  Court  Martial: 

“Adjourn  court  until  Monday  next. 

“GIDEON  WELLES,  Secretary  of  Navy.” 

And  thereupon  the  court  adjourned  until  Monday  next,  September  the  nineteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

THIRD  DAY. 

Navy  YArd,  New  York, 

Monday,  September  19,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  Thursday. 

Present:  Rear-Admiral  Samuel  L.  Breese,  Commodore  William  C.  Nicholson,  Commodore  Ilcnry  Eagle, 
Captain  James  Glynn,  Lieutenant  James  A.  Doyle,  Lieutenant  Bayse  N.  Westcott,  members  ; and  Samuel  C. 
Perkins,  judge  advocate. 


4 


The  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  is  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  Thursday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  accused  being  now  asked  if  he  is  ready  for  trial,  replies  in  the  affirmative ; and  he  is  then  called 
upon  by  the  judge  advocate  to  plead  to  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  enters  the  plea  of  not  guilty. 

The  accused  here  asked  and  obtained  permission  to  be  assisted  in  his  defence  by  James  B.  Craig, 
esquire,  as  his  counsel,  who  is  then  introduced. 

The  judge  advocate  now  calls  James  O'Neill,  who  being  first  duly  sworn  by  the  president  of  the  court, 
in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories,  testified  as  follows  : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  is  your  name,  age,  residence  and  occupation  ? 

Answer.  My  name  is  James  O’Neill ; my  age  is  forty-five.  I am  a native  of  Dublin.  My  occupation 
is  fireman  or  stoker. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  on  board  the  steamer  “Nicholas  I,”  when  she  was  captured, 
in  March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three  ? If  aye,  in  what  capacity  ? 

Answer.  I was  on  board  the  ‘‘Nicholas  I”  when  she  was  captured.  I was  a fireman. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  State  fully  and  in  detail  all  the  facts  in  relation  to  your  being  shot 
on  board  the  “ Nicholas  I,”  on  or  about  the  day  of  her  capture. 

Answer.  I was  on  board  when  she  was  captured,  and  the  chief  engineer  told  me — he  asked  me  what  I 
was — was  I a fireman  or  a sailor  ? I told  him  I was  a fireman.  He  told  me  he  had  no  fireman  on  board,  only  one 
first-class  fireman  ; and  he  asked  me,  would  I volunteer  to  work  the  ship  to  New  York,  for  a dollar  and  a half 
a day?  So  I told  him  I would.  He  asked  me  for  to  ask  the  rest  of  the  firemen.  He  told  me  that  tho 
first-class  fireman  was  down  below  in  the  stoke-hole.  I told  him  I would  not  ask  the  rest  of  the  firemen  ; 
I would  ask  my  own  mate;  that  there  was  enough  down  there ; that  would  be  myself  and  mate,  and  the 
firs*t-class  fireman,  with  a trimmer.  I told  him  to  ask  the  rest  of  the  firemen  himself,  when  my  watch  was 
up.  I did  not  know  I was  going  to  bring  her  to  anchor.  The  chief  engineer,  came  down,  and  my  time  was  up 
then  ; I got  no  dinner.  The  two  engineers  was  down,  my  own  engineer  and  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Victoria. 
When  I told  him  that  my  time  was  up,  he  said  he  didn’t  want  any  more  down  there.  My  engineer  had  given 
me  a character.  He  asked  me  if  I would  stop.  He  told  me  she  was  going  to  anchor.  I think  it  was  off 

Wilmington,  or  some  place  like  that,  to  get  coal.  He  said  he  wouldn’t  be  long  going.  I told  him  I had  no 

objections  to  stop  if  she  wouldn’t  be  long.  He  told  me  he  would  look  after  my  dinner  when  she  came  to 
anchor.  I fired  away  and  we  brought  her  to  anchor,  and  so  I avent  and  stood  by  the  starting  bars  of  the 
steamer,  with  the  chief  engineer  and  our  own  third  engineer.  I worked  the  starting  bars.  So  when  we 
dropped  anchor,  the  chief  engineer  told  us  firemen  to  get  the  fires  pushed  back  and  banked  up,  and  that 
would  do  for  the  night.  The  first-class  fireman  he  had  there,  Gernon,  said  the  fires  were  too  heavy.  So  I 
got  the  rake  and  shoved  back  the  fires  ; they  were  very  heavy.  Then  there  was  some  stuff  in  the  stoke-hole, 
and  I got  it  and  put  it  on  them,  to  bank  them  up.  When  I got  everything  done,  I brought  Gernon  round  to 
show  him  the  pumps,  and  a small  donkey  tor  pumping  water.  We  walked  up,  Gernon  and  I,  between  the 
engines.  When  we  got  up  through  the  engines,  I asked  Gernon,  did  he  see  the  powder  ? He  said  he  had  j us  t 
seen  it;  I think  it  was  where  we  used  to  go  to  cool  ourselves;  there  was  a ventilator  down  there.  Gernon 

said  he  thought  it  was  his  duty  to  report.  I told  him  yes  ; that  there  was  a lot  of  his  men  aboard,  and  they 

didn’t  know  where  the  powder  lay;  that  there  might  be  smoking;  I never  saw  any  of  his  men  smoking. 
Gernon  went  up  on  deck,  and  he  was  only  about  five  minutes  away.  He  told  me  to  hold  on  where  I was, 
near  the  hand-rail,  tiil  he  came  down  again,  and  I stood  there  wiping  myself,  and  presently  he  came  down. 
The  officer  came  down  with  him,  the  Lieutenant  Everson,  the  accused,  and  the  two  stood  on  the  top 
platform.  I see^ Gernon  going  to  the  globe  lamp  hung  up  between  the  two  cylinders,  and  take  the  burner  out ; I 
don’t  think  there  was  any  wick  in  it ; and  he  put  the  burner  back  in  the  lantern,  and  called  down  to  me  for  to  get 
him  a lamp  ; I went  to  another  globe  . lamp  that  was  hanging  between  the  engines  on  the  platform  below,  and  took 
the  burner  out  of  that  ;.I  just  pulled  the  wick  up,  and  was  going  to  light  it.  The  Lieutenant  Everson  was 
standing  at  the  entrance  of  the  forward  hold,  where  the  powder  was  ; you  had  to  stoop  to  go  into  it.  I pulled 
up  the  wick  and  was  going  to  light  the  lamp  myself  for  Gernon.  Never  mind,  he  says,  I will  light  it ; I gave 
him  the  lamp.  He  wasn’t  more  than  two  minutes  away,  when  I walked  into  under  the  ventilator  in  the 
forward  hold,  where  we  had  the  coal  wheeling  it  out.  There  was  no  coal  in  the  bunkers;  they  were  out. 
Gernon  was  coming  in  from  the  fire  hold  ; Lieutenant  Everson  never  saw  the  fire  hold.  He  never  was  as  far 
as  the  first  hatchway ; there  are  two  hatchways,  a small  one  and  a large  one. 


id 


The  powder  was  packed  up  in  bag-salt  to  prevent  it  from  rolling  ; so  1 beard.  I never  was  as  far  as  where 
the  powder  was  stowed.  I saw  the  powder  on  deck  when  we  were  at  Nassau.  X never  went  beyond  my  own 
ventilator.  Lieutenant  Everson  walked  into  the  fore  hold,  and  I followed  him.  He  was  standing;  his  back 
was  towards  the  powder.  He  says,  “ No  admittance,”  and  before  I could  stir  the  ball  was  through  my  thigh, 
and  Gernon  was  coming  in  with  the  lamp.  Gernon  was  between  me  and  the  fire  hold,  aud  the  lieutenant  be- 
tween me  and  the  powder.  Gernon  was  in  the  forward  hold  with  the  lamp,  and  I just  turned  round  and 
felt  the  blood  running  down  my  leg.  Gernon  said,  “ Lieutenant,  you  have  shot  that  man.”  I think  be 
called  him  by  his  name — Lieutenant  Everson.  I never  forgot  the  name  since,  and  never  will  while  I am 
alive.  “Never  mind,”  he  says,  “ it’s  all  right.”  Cross. — Gernon  said,  “ I was  after  working  a hard  day’s 
work,  that  X was  the  only  one  that  was  of  any  use  to  him,”  or  something  like  that.  I know  X heard  those 
words.  I was  frightened  at  being  shot;  I know’d  X was  shot  then — the  blood  was  running  into  my  boot.  I 
left  the  hold  and  walked  through  the  engines — the  middle  platform,  we  call  it — and  was  going  up  the  stoke 
hole  or  fire-room  ladder.  I had  to  come  back,  and  Murphy  caught  me  then,  as  I was  going  to  fall.  I told 
Murphy  I was  shot.  He  says,  “ You  are  not  shot,  Jimmy.”  I said  “There  is  the  blood.”  He  left  me  down 
between  the  engines  on  the  platform.  By  that  time  I got  very  weak,  and  I remember  Gernon  cutting  my 
trowsers  and  drawers.  He  took  off  my  boot  and  stocking  ; he  got  a handkerchief  and  tied  it  round  my  leg. 
where  I was  shot.  Then  he  got  another  handkerchief  and  tied  it  up  higher  on  my  thigh  ; he  got  a piece  of 
wood  and  put  it  into  the  handkerchief — the  one  above  the  wound — and  twisted  it  tight.  The  next  I see 
when  I came  around  again,  was  the  doctor  and  the  chief  engineer,  aud  the  men  all  round  me.  I heard  some  of 
them  telling  that  I should  be  hoisted  up  by  the  ash  fall.  Gernon  said  no ; that  he  would  carry  me  up  ; so 
they  got  me  up  to  the  engineer’s  companion — the  same  place  the  lieutenant  bad  come  down.  They  brought 
me  to  the  after  gangway,  and  when  I got  on  deck  I fainted  again  for  two  or  three  minutes.  The  doctor  gave 
me  something  to  drink,  and  I came  round  again.  They  got  a piece  of  canvas  and  made  a sling,  and  slung  me 
over  the  side  and  put  me  into  an  open  boat,  and  took  me  to  the  Victoria,  and  slung  me  up  the  same  way  on 
to  the  Victoria.  My  bed  was  all  full  of  blood,  and  the  men  said  they  would  throw  my  bed  away.  The 
doctor  belonging  to  the  Victoria,  a young  man — a very  good  man  he  was  to  me — got  a strap,  a tourniquet,  and 
put  on  my  thigh.  I remained  on  the  Victoria  five  or  six  days,  from  Saturday  till  Thursday,  I think.  The 
doctor  came  to  me  on  Thursday  and  said,  “ If  you  wish  to  go  to  New  York,  O’Neill,  you  may  go  ; if  I wished 
to  stop  along  with  them,  I might  stop.”  I said  I would  be  satisfied  where  X was  brought  if  my  mates  were 
going ; that  I would  be  nearer  home,  if  I was  brought  to  New  York.  I was  brought  over  in  their  boat  to 
Fortress  Monroe,  and  sent  to  Norfolk  hospital.  I was  there  something  like  seventy  odd  days.  I lay  on  my 
back  sixty-two  days  without  being  allowed  to  stir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  were  you  shot  by,  and  what  were  you  shot  with? 

Answer.  I was  shot  with  a revolver — a brass-mouuted  one.  I was  shot  by  Lieutenant  Everson,  the 
accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts  in  the  leg  were  you  shot  ? 

Answer.  X was  shot  about  the  middle  of  the  left  thigh.  The  ball  went  under  the  bone;  I think  it  went 
clean  through.  * 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Look  at  the  drawing  now  shown  to  you,  marked  A,  S.  C.  I3.,  and  say 
whether  it  is  a correct  plan  of  the  “ Nicholas  I,”  and  shows  correctly  the  relative  position  of  the  parts  of  the 
vessel  you  have  spoken  of. 

Answer.  It  is  pretty  near  it.  I am  not  a very  good  judge. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Look  at  the  plan  just  shown  to  you,  and  describe  the  position  of  the 
boilers,  fire-uoom,  engines,  coal  bunkers,  and  forward  hold  of  the  “Nicholas  I.” 

Answer.  The  engines  were  in  the  centre  of  the  vessel,  between  the  forward  hold  and  the  boilers  ; there 
were  two  engines  ; they  were  on  both  sides  of  the  vessel,  with  a platform  round  both  engines,  aud  a centre 
platform  between  them;  the  boilers  were  aft  the  engines ; the  coal  bunkers  were  between  the  engines  and  the 
boilers,  close  up  to  the  boilers — nothing  else  between  them;  the  fire-room  was  aft  of  the  engines,  and  aft  of 
the  bunkers  ; there  might  have  been  a bit  run  each  side  of  the  boilers.  I never  was  through  the  bunkers. 
The  forward  hold  was  back  of  the  cylinders.  There  was  a ladder  leading  from  the  platform,  on  top  of  the 
cylinders,  to  the  engineer’s  platform,  and  this  ladder  was  taken  away  when  we  were  getting  coals  out,  and 
when  we  went  to  anchor  the  ladder  was  put  up  into  its  own  place. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  fire-room  aft  or  forward  of  the  boilers  ? 


6 


Answer.  It  was  forward  of  the  boilers. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  was  in  the  forward  hold  ? 

Answer.  There  was  salt,  and  powder,  and  coal. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  the  powder  stowed  ? 

- Answer  Forward  of  the  coal. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  was  the  powder  packed  ? 

Answer.  It  was  put  up  in  small  kegs ; they  were  like  a butter  firkin ; they  were  pretty  good  size. 
Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  forward  hold  ? 

Answer.  Very  little  there  then.  I can’t  say  how  much  was  put  in  at  first;  we  were  getting  short  of 
coal  by  that  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  in  the  bunkers,  aft  of  the  engine,  at  this  time? 
Answer.  I don’t  think  there  was  much  in,  because  we  had  been  using  the  coals  out  of  the  forward  hold. 
I don’t  know  how  much  there  was.  I never  was  in  the  bunkers. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  On  what  day  was  the  “Nicholas  I”  captured? 

Answer.  The  twenty-first  of  March,  Saturday,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  what  time  in  the  day  ? 

Ansiuer.  I think  it  was  something  about  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning;  I can’t  say  to  the  minute. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  she  at  the  time  of  her  capture  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  ; there  was  land  in  sight.  . 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  she  under  way  or  at  anchor  at  the  time  of  her  capture? 

Ansiuer.  She  was  under  way ; she  was  stopped  and  then  got  under  way ; she  was  at  anchor,  and  then 
they  got  the  anchor  up.  I don’t  mind  what  the  sailors  do  half  the  time ; I mind  my  own  work. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  the  capture  was  it  before  you  were  shot? 

Ansiuer.  About  four  hours  and  a half  or  five  hours — about  five  hours,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection.  She 
was  at  anchor. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  she  at  anchor  ? 

Ansiuer.  I don’t  know  the  name  of  the  place. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  were  the  hours  of  your  watch  ? 

Answer.  Four  hours — from  eight  to  twelve,  or  from  twelve  to  four,  I forget  which  ; we  changed  our 
watches.  We  went  down  that  day  about  half  past  ten  or  ten  o’clock. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  of  the  capture,  was  it  your  watch  below  ? 

Answer.  Not  by  rights,  sir ; only  that  I stopped  to  oblige  the  engineer. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  were  you  on  duty  that  day  ? 

Answer.  I suppose  about  four  hours  and  a half,  or  from  that  to  five  hours.  I had  no  watch  to  tell  the 
time.  I wanted  to  go  away  and  the  engineer  wanted  me  to  stop.  I told  him  that  I was  not  frightened  by  an 
hour  or  two  extra  work.  I took  a liking  to  him  ; I thought  he  might  he  kind  to  me. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  give  any  reason  for  shooting  you? 
Answer.  No,  sir ; never  that  I know  of. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  given  you  any  order  before  shooting  you  ? 

Answer.  rLhe  word  he  said  was  “No  admittance,”  and  let  go,  and  the  ball  was  through  me  before  the 
word  was  out  of  his  own  mouth. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Before  he  said  “No  admittance,”  had  he  given  you  no  orders  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nothing  in  the  world. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  given  him  any  cause  for  shooting  you  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nothing. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  seen  him  on  that  day  at  any  time  before  he  shot  you  ! 
Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  standing  by  with  the  engineer  when  the  engineer  engaged  me  at  the  crank.  I 
saw  him  when  he  came  aboard;  I saw  him  ordering  the  captain  up  out  of  the  cabin. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  hear  him  give  any  orders  then,  or  at  any  other  time,  about 
persons  being  allowed  below  ? 

Answer.  Ivo,  sir;  oh,  no;  I didn’t  hear  it;  but  I think  there  was  orders  given,  because  a sentry  was 
placed  on  the  top  of  the  ladder  out  of  the  stoke-hole,  and  that’s  the  reason  we  had  to  g'o  into  the  forward 
hold  to  cool  ourselves  under  this  ventilator, 


i 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  sentry  at  this  ladder  when  you  went  down  below,  at  the  time 
the  chief  engineer  engaged  you  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  did  you  first  notice  the  sentry  there  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know,  I am  sure;  I didn’t  take  notice;  I can’t  tell.  I seen  him  there.  We  had  a 
bucket  of  water  below.  Us  firemen  used  to  go  in  under  the  ventilator  to  take  a drink  of  water,  and  cool  our- 
selves and  wipe  ourselves. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts,  exactly,  was  this  ventilator? 

Answer.  Just  inside  the  forward  hold.  We  had  a wheelbarrow  there — an  empty  one — that  we  used  to 
sit  on.  It  was  just  back  of  the  cylinders. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Could  any  day-light  get  into  the  forward  hold? 

Answer.  Yes  ; I think  the  small  hatch  was  open  between  decks.  There  was  one  of  them  open ; I think 
it  was  the  small  one.  The  powder  was  under  the  main  hatch.  It  was  open  at  that  time,  I know  ; I recollect 
it  now.  There  was  a top  hatch  and  one  between  decks. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  small  hatch  into  the  forward  hold  forward  of  the  ventilator  or 
aft  of  it  ? 

Answer.  It  was  forward  of  it. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  other  hatch  into  the  forward  hold  forward  or  aft  of  the  small 
hatch. 

Answer.  It  was  forward  of  the  small  hatch.  There  are  two  hatchways  there  ; I don’t  take  no  notice  of 
them.  We  ship’s  firemen,  and  we  don’t  notice  the  hatches  and  such  like.  The  engines  is  our  work. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  was  it  from  the  fire-doors  of  the  furnaces  to  the  place  where 
you  were  shot  ? 

Answer.  A long  ways — a long  ways  entirely;  I think  it  was  twenty  yards,  about.  It  is  the  length  of 
the  two  rooms  we  are  now  in. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts  were  you  on  the  “Nicholas  I”  when  the  chief  engineer  of 
the  Victoria  engaged  you  to  work  ? 

Answer.  About  amidships,  near  the  engine;  near  the  crank-hatch  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  accused,  Mr.  Everson,  sober  at  the  time  you  were  shot,  or  was 
he  under  the  influence  of  liquor  ? 

Answer.  To  the  best  of  my  opinion  he  was  under  liquor. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  liquor  on  board  the  “Nicholas  I ?” 

Ansiotr.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts  was  it  at  the  time  of  the  capture. ? 

Answer.  It  was  in  the  cabin.  I went  , down  a few  minutes  after  the  captain  left.  I wanted  to  get  some- 
thing from  him — something  of  mine  he  had — a paper  or  something.  I saw  liquor  there  then. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  the  crew  of  the  “ Nicholas  I”  been  drinking  at  the  time  of  the 
capture  ? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  We  got  our  grog  in  the  morning. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  anything  to  separate  the  coal  from  the  powder  in  the  fore 
hold? 

Ansiver.  Nothing  only  some  loose  boards  like,  to  let  the  coals  slide  aft.  The  loose  boards  were  put  down 
from  the  hatchway  to  slide  down  the  coal. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Do  you  recollect  anything  else  in  reference  to  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations against  the  accused  which  you  have  omitted  in  your  preceding  testimony  ? If  so,  state  it. 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I don’t  think  there  is.  I was  asked  at  the  time  I fainted  on  the  deck  of  the  “Nicholas 
I,”  by  the  doctor,  whether  I knew  the  officer  that  shot  me.  I raised  up  on  my  elbow  on  the  bulwarks  and 
saw  Mr.  Everson  standing  there,  and  pointed  to  him  and  said,  “ There  is  the  officer  that  shot  me.” 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  were  poresent  at  the  time  you  were  shot  ? 

Answer.  Murphy  and  Gernon  ; nobody  else.  I didn’t  know  whether  Ned,  the  coal-heaver,  was  there 
or  not.  They  said  he  was,  but  I didn’t  see  him. 

The  judge  advocate  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  court,  before  proceeding  to  ask  questions, 
request  that  the  testimony  of  the  witness  thus  far  may  be  read  over. 


8 


The  accused  objects  to  the  witness  being  present  while  the  testimony  is  being  read  over  at  this  stage  of 
he  examination,  on  the  ground  that  it  will  deprive  the  accused  of  much  of  the  advantage  of  cross-examina- 
tion, by  giving  the  witness  an  opportunity  to  make  up  any  correction  of  his  statement  before  he  is  cross-ex- 
amined. 

The  court  is  thereupon  cleared  for  deliberation. 

The  court  having  been  reopened,  the  accused,  with  his  counsel  and  the  witness,  are  readmitted. 

The  judge  advocate  informs  the  accused  that  the  court  has  decided  that  the  examination  of  the  witness 
shall  be  proceeded  with. 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  September  the  twentieth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

FOURTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Tuesday,  September  20,  1S64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present:  Members  of  the  court,  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  with  his  counsel  was  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  examination  of  the  witness,  James  O’Neill,  was  resumed. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Where  were  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  “ Nicholas  I,”  at  the  time  vou  were 
shot  1 What  had  been  done  with  them  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  sir.  I was  down  in  the  stoke-hole — in  the  fire  hold.  The  third  engineer,  he  was 
in  the  engine-room  when  we  went  to  anchor.  I stood  by  the  starting  bars  myself. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Had  any  of  the  officers  of  crew  of  the  Nicholas  been  taken  off  the  vessel  at  the 
time  you  went  down  into  the  fire  hold  to  work  ? 

Answer.  The  captain  was  taken  ; no  one  else  had  been  taken  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  the  Court.  When  the  accused  fired  on  you,  did  he,  or  did  he  not,  first  order  you  not  to 
advance  any  further  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  said  “ No  admittance,”  and  before  the  word  was  spoke  the  ball  was  through  me. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  had  you  in  your  hand  at  the  time  you  were  shot  1 

Answer.  A handkerchief,  and  a piece  of  waste.  I had  a handkerchief  in  one  hand  to  wipe  mvself,  and 
a piece  of  waste  in  the  other,  to  take  the  big  dirt  off  first,  because  it  was  a new  handkerchief.  It  was  after 
pushing  back  four  heavy  fires,  and  I was  very  warm. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  was  the  distance  from  the  forward  part  of  the  platform  between  the 
engines  to  the  bulkhead  that  separated  the  powder  from  the  space  between  it  and  the  passage  between  the 
engines  1 

Answer.  I never  was  as  far  as  the  powder — not  down  below  in  the  hold.  There  was  no  bulkhead 
between  the  powder  and  the  space  between  it  and  the  passage  between  the  engines — only  a few  loose  boards. 
I saw  the  coal-heavers  when  they  were  sliding  the  coals  down  these  boards.  I don’t  know  how  far  it  was  to 

the  powder,  because  I never  went  further  than  just  under  the  ventilator.  The  coal  was  in  bunk loose. 

There  was  a bulkhead  between  the  engines  and  the  forward  hold,  where  the  coal  was,  and  in  this  bulkhead 
there  was  a doorway  cut,  through  which  we  wheeled  the  coal.  There  was  no  bulkhead  between  the  coal  and 
the  powder,  only  these  loose  planks.  I never  wheeled  or  shovelled  coal  out  of  the  forward  hold.  I never  saw 
any  powder  there ; it  was  pretty  dark  in  there.  I was  a fireman  and  never  wheeled  and  shovelled  coal — the  coal- 
heaver  did  that;  we  firemen  only  went  into  this  forward  hold  to  sit  under  the  ventilator  to  cool  ourselves. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Could  a person  in  that  part  of  the  forward  hold  where  the  coal  was,  act  at  the 
powder? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; I think  so. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Could  a person  get  at  the  powder  from  below,  or  was  it  necessary  to  pass  down 
through  the  hatch  on  deck  to  do  so  ? 

Answer.  I couldn’t  tell  that,  because  I never  went  there.  I never  went  below  in  the  hold,  because  when 
the  coal-heaver  was  wheeling  the  coal,  there  was  so  much  dust  there. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Where  did  you  ship  on  board  the  Nicholas  ? 

Ansicer.  At  Liverpool. 


9 


Question  by  the  Court.  At  the  time  you  shipped,  and  before  that,  where  had  you  lived  ? 

Answer.  In  Liverpool.  I had  lived  there  twenty-three  or  twenty-four  years. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  your  family  live  there  all  that  time  ? 

'Answer.  Not  all  the  time.  My  first  wife  died,  aud  the  children  were  with  their  aunt  just  outside  of 
Dublin.  I used  to  lodge  ashore  at  night  sometimes,  but  I used  to  live  aboard  the  boat.  I was  coasting 
that  time  to  Dublin  and  Belfast. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  the  accused  before  the  shooting  1 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  How  did  you  pass  from  the  passage  between  the  engines  to  the  fore  peak,  or 
forehold,  where  the  powder  was  stored,  and  what  was  about  the  distance  between  these  two  parts  of  the  vessel  1 

Ansioer.  Right  straight  ahead  between  the  two  engines  on  the  lower  platform.  We  had  to  clear  out 
when  they  were  wheeling  the  coal  out  of  the  forward  hold ; the  barrow  filled  up  all  the  space  in  the  passage. 
There  was  a ladder,  which  I have  mentioned,  which  led  from  the  lower  passage  or  platform  to  the  platform 
on  top  of  the  cylinders,  and  this  ladder  we  had  to  take  away  when  they  were  wheeling  coal — to  unship  it. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Were  the  fire-rooms,  the  lower  platform  or  passage  between  the  engines  and  the 
forward  hold,  on  the  same  level  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  except  that  in  coming  out  of  the  fire-room  into  the  passage  there  was  a step,  and  then 
a sort  of  sill  about  two  or  three  inches  high  at  the  doorway  in  the  bulkhead  between  the  engines  and  the 
forward  hold. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Have  you  ever  given  any  testimony  about  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas  I,  in  any 
other  court,  before  this  ? 

Ansioer.  No,  sir.  I was  Dever  in  any  other  court  before  this.  I made  two  affidavits  before  Mr.  Archi- 
bald, the  British  consul  at  New  York,  and  there  was  some  papers  which  were  going  home  to  England,  I 
think,  I went  up  to  some  court  at  the  City  Hall  to  sign  my  name  to. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  was  Gernon  going  for  a lamp  for ; and  was  it  a close  lamp  or  an  open  one  ? 

Answer.  It  was  an  open  one  ; I took  the  burner  out  myself — out  of  the  globe  lamp.  He  wanted  it  for 
the- lieutenant,  to  show  him  where  the  powder  was. 

Question  by  the  Court.  You  have  stated  that  at  the  time  of  the  shooting,  Gernon  was  between  you  and 
the  fire  hold,  and  the  Lieutenant  Everson  between  you  and  the  powder ; and  also,  that  Gernon  was  in  the 
forward  hold  with  the  lamp,  and  that  you  just  turned  round  and  felt  the  blood  running  down  your  leg.  State 
more  particularly  where  Gernon  and  yourself  each  were  at  the  moment  you  were  shot,  and  what  Gernon  did 
immediately  after  you  were  shot  1 

Answer.  When  the  lieutenant  and  Gernon  came  down.  I didn’t  state  that  Gernon  was  in  the  forward 
hold  when  I was  shot.  He  couldn’t  have  been,  for  he  was  behind  me  with  the  lamp.  When  the  lieutenant 
and  Gernon  came  down  on  the  top  platform,  I saw  Gernon  go  to  the  globe  lantern  and  take  the  burner  out  ; 
I seen  him  putting  it  back  again ; I was  standing  in  the  same  place  where  he  left  me,  my  back  against  the 
hand  rail,  wiping  myself.  He  asked  me  to  get  him  a lamp  ; I just  turned  about,  and  took  another  burner 
out  of  the  lamp  that  was  hanging  down  below  on  the  lower  platform;  I just  pulled  up  the  wick,  and  was 
going  to  light  the  lamp  myself,  and  Gernon  took  it  and  lit  it  to  bring  it  to  the  lieutenant  to  show  him  where 
the  powder  was.  Then  I just  turned  in.  I saw  the  lieutenant  going  in,  and  I just  turned  in  to  cool  myself 
under  the  ventilator  as  usual,  and  I got  the  shot.  The  lieutenant  was  standing  sideways  like,  and  stooped. 
He  had  his  revolver  and  cutlass,  and  said  “No  admittance,”  and  just  popped  away.  Gernon  had  the  same,  a 
revolver  and  cutlass.  With  that  I came  away,  and  found  the  blood  running.  Gernon  said,  “ Lieutenant, 
you’ve  shot  that  man.”  “Nevermind,”  said  he,  “it’s  all  right.”  Immediately  after  I was  shot,  Gernon  came 
into  the  forward  hold  with  the  lamp,  and  I turned  out. 

Question  by  the  Court.  How  and  where  did  Gernon  light  the  lamp  l 

Answer.  I did  not  see  him  light  the  lamp ; there  was  a lamp  hanging  up  in  the  stoke-hole  or  fire-room ; 
the  lamp  was  burning. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Which  way  did  Gernon  go  to  get  the  lamp  lighted  ? 

Answer.  He  went  into  the  fire-room.  I can’t  say  whether  he  lit  the  lamp  at  the  furnace  or  at  the  lamp. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Were  you  on  the  lower  platform  all  this  time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  no  one  allowed  to  go  up  from  the  fire-ioom,  and  no  one  allowed  to  come 
down,  else  I would  have  had  no  business  to  go  into  the  forward  hold,  for  I always  used  to  go  up  on  deck  to 
cool  myself. 


10 


Question  by  the  Court.  You  have  stated  that  you  followed  the  accused  to  the  fore  hold  just  previous  to 
being  shot.  What  business  had  you  there,  or  what  was  your  object  in  following  the  accused  ? 

Answer.  Why,  for  to  go  in  to  cool  myself  as  usual,  and  to  take  a drink  of  water ; we  had  a bucket  of  water 
there. 

Question  by  the  Court.  How  far  from  where  the  powder  was  stowed  were  you  at  the  time  you  were  shot  ? 

Answer.  Can’t  tell  you  that ; I never  was  as  far  as  the  powder.  I never  went  into  that  hold  at  all, 
except  as  I have  told  you.  I wouldn’t  go  in  there  to  dirty  myself. 

Questio?i  by  the  Coirrt.  You  have  stated  that  you  were  hoisted  up  the  side  of  the  Victoria;  is  not  that 
the.  usual  way  of  getting  wounded  persons  on  board  vessels  from  a boat  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know.  I’ve  never  been  in  the  navy. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  there  any  order  or  word  passed  by  any  officer  of  the  Victoria  to  the  crew, 
or  any  one  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  I,  not  to  go  in  the  fore  hold,  or  anywhere  near  the  powder? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  not  as  I know  of.  I don’t  think  they  knew  there  was  any  powder  in  it.  I think  the 
first-class  fireman  was  the  first  man  who  knew  anything  about  it,  as  I know  of.  The  Victoria’s  men  behaved 
very  well  to  me. 

The  Court  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  accused  proceeds  to  cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  had  the  Nicholas  been  chased  before  her  capture? 

Answer.  Not  long,  at  all.  I don’t  think  she  was  chased  more  than  half  or  three-quarters  of  an  hour.  I 
can’t  tell  exactly.  There  was  no  chase  in  it — they  got  her. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Had  shots  been  fired  at  the  Nicholas  by  the  Victoria?  If  so,  how  many  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; four  or  five — four,  I think ; I can’t  say  exactly  how  many. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  time  of  day  did  the  Victoria  first  come  in  sight  of  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  I am  sure  I can’t  tell — it  was  my  watch  below.  To  the  best  of  my  opinion,  it  was  about  eight 
o’clock. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  far  was  the  Victoria  from  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Everson 
boarding  her  ? 

Answer.  Not  very  far.  A few  pulls  of  the  boat  from  the  Victoria  brought  them  aboard.  They  were 
not  far  off. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  men  composed  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  and  how  many  officers  ? 

Answer.  There  was  six  firemen,  three  coal-heavers,  and  three  engineers — that’s  all  that  belong  to  the 
engine.  I don’t  know  how  many  sailors — five  or  six.  1 never  minded  the  sailors  at  all. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  men  came  on  board  the  Nicholas  from  the  Victoria  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know.  All  I know  is  the  one  man,  or  two — Gernon  and  the  engineer;  that’s  all  I 
spoke  to. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  yoir  know  the  name  of  the  engineer  of  the  Victoria  who  came  on  the 
Nicholas ; what  is  it  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Webster.  I think  that  is  his  name.  I was  told 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  Mr.  Webster  engage  you  to  work  and  agree  to  pay  you  ? Did  he  talk 
with  you  ? 

Answer.  He  agreed  to  give  me  a dollar  and  a half  a day.  if  I would  agree  to  work  the  ship  to  New  York. 
He  talked  with  me.  I asked  him  if  he  was  an  engineer.  He  was  in  uniform.  I didn’t  know  the  difference 
between  him  and  another  officer.  He  said  he  was  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Victoria. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  was  Mr.  Webster  when  you  had  this  conversation  with  him  ? 

Answer.  On  the  deck  of  the  Nicholas. 

Question  by  the  accused.  W as  Mr.  Everson  present  ? 

Answer.  There  was  an  officer  there  present.  I couldn’t  tell  who  it  was — whether  it  was  Mr.  Everson  or 
not.  He  walked  away  then.  I think,  myself,  it  was  Mr.  Everson,  but  I couldn’t  swear  to  it. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  the  engineer  of  the  Nicholas  there  at  the  time  Mr.  Webster  engaged  von  ! 

Answer.  No,  sir;  he  was  not  present. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  after  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas  before  you  went  below,  who 
ordered  you  below,  and  what  was  the  first  order  you  received  after  you  got  below  ? 

Answer . I suppose  about  an  hour  after  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas  I went  below.  The  engineer 
belonging  to  the  Victoria  ordered  me  below — Mr.  Webster.  I engaged  him  to — I volunteered.  The  first 


11 


order  I received  after  I got  below  was.  Gernon  asked,  “Were  we  firemen?”  and  we  said  “Yes.”  He  told 
us  for  to  see  and  get  steam  on  her  as  soon  as  we  could;  so  we  knocked  off  and  worked  away.  The  bead 
engineer  belonging  to  tbe  Victoria,  Mr.  Webster,  came  down,  and  asked  Gernon  bow  we  were  doing,  and 
Gernon  said  “Very  well.”  We  were  working  very  bard. 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Was  there  a guard  stationed  at  tbe  doors  leading  below  when  you  went  down  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I did  not  see  any  guard.  I saw  no  one  there  only  Gernon;  be  bad  charge  of  the 
boilers. 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Hid  Mr.  Webster  give  you  any  orders  which  you  refused  or  hesitated  to  obey? 

Answer.  No,  never,  sir.  He  told  Gernon  to  look  after  tbe  boilers.  My  chief  engineer  told  him,  “You 
needn’t  be  afraid,  Mr.  Webster,  as  long  as  Jimmy  is  down  here;  be  is  an  old  fireman.” 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Did  not  Mr.  Webster,  at  one  time,  threaten  to  shoot  you  for  not  obeying  bis 
orders  to  go  on  deck? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I never  done  anything  to  any  one  down  there. 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Did  not  Mr.  Webster  have  at  one  time  to  take  bold  of  and  push  you  up  tbe 
ladder,  after  you  bad  refused  to  go,  and  at  that  time  threaten  to  shoot  you  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  not  me,  sir. 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Webster  ever  reported  you  to  Mr.  Everson,  and 
requested  him  to  have  you  put  in  irons  for  being  drunk,  or  noisy,  or  disobedient  ? 

Answer.  Ob,  never,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  Gernon,  tbe  fireman  of  tbe  Victoria,  tell  you,  or  any  one  in  your  presence, 
that  if  you  were  not  less  noisy  he  would  have  to  shoot  some  of  you  ? 

Answer.  Gernon  told  me,  when  I came  down  into  the  stoke  bole,  that  there  were  some  of  tbe  men  on 
deck  drunk,  but  I knew  nothing  about  that.  Gernon  did  not  tell  any  one  in  my  presence  that  be  would 
shoot  them.  Gernon  did  not  tell  me  that  if  I were  not  less  noisy  be  would  have  to  shoot  some  of  us.  I 
can’t  say  whether  be  told  me,  but  I heard  him  say  something  about  shooting.  I heard  the  word  pass,  but  not 
to  me.  1 heard  some  of  them  got  drunk,  but  this  was  a good  while  after  she  was  captured. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  drinks  had  you  taken  on  the  day  of  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas 
up  to  the  time  of  the  shooting,  and  where  did  you  get  them  ? 

Answer.  Well,  about  eight  o’clock  in  the  morning  I had  a drink — seven  or  eight  o’clock — and  then  all  I 
had  was  a glass  I got  in  the  cabin  from  the  steward.  The  first  drink  the  engineer  gave  me ; it  was  my 
regular  grog — we  were  allowed  grog.  I got  the  drink  from  the  steward  immediately  just  after  she  was 
captured  ; I think  I went  down. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  those  two  drinks  make  you  drunk  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ; I was  working  long  enough  below  to  get  sober. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  did  you  drink  in  the  cabin,  and  how  much  ? What  did  you  drink  in  the 
morning  ? 

Answer.  It  was  gin  like,  or  whiskey,  I drank  in  the  cabin — it  was  gin,  in  a square  bottle.  He  filled  it 
out  in  the  tumbler — the  steward ; there  was  a good  drink  in  it.  The  tumbler  was  not  full ; it  wasn’t  half 
full ; it  was  better  than  a quarter  full — just  a nice  drink.  I drank  in  the  morning  rum,  or  something  like  it. 
We  got  it  in  Nassau.  I only  drank  a glass — what  we  were  allowed  on  watch. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  you  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  any  time  on  the  day  of  the  capture 
of  the  Nicholas  up  to  the  time  you  were  shot? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  as  certain  about  this  as  about  everything  else  you  have  sworn  to  ? 

Ansioer.  Y"es,  sir ; I took  what  I told  you  then. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  drunk  or  disorderly  on  the  day  of  her  capture  ? 

Answer.  I can’t  say.  I don’t  know  only  what  I heard. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  whether  there  was  any  fighting  among  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas 
on  that  day  ? 

Answer.  Nothing,  only  what  I heard  below  in  the  fire-hold. 

Question  by  tbe  accused.  Did  you,  at  the  time  Mr.  Everson  boarded  the  Nicholas,  see  any  of  the  crew 
or  officers  have  bottles  of  liquor  on  deck,  drinking  from  them? 

Ansioer.  No,  sir;  oh,  no. 


12 


Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  at  any  time  that  day  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I wasn’t  long  above;  I had  to  go  down. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  Mr.  Everson  boarded  the  Nicholas;  in  which  part 
of  the  ship? 

Answer.  I was  about  the  fire  hold;  that’s  aft  like.  I was  on  deck;  it  was  just  forward  of  the  quarter 
deck. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Everson  drink  any  liquor  on  the  day  of  the  capture? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  induces  you,  then,  to  swear  he  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  the 
time  he  shot  you? 

Answer.  Why,  by  the  way  he  appeared  to  me;  another  thing,  a sober  man  wouldn’t  shoot  a poor  man 
who  was  working  hard. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  did  he  appear?  Describe  fully  his  appearance. 

Answer.  Why,  after  his  shooting  me  he  colored ; turned  white ; as  white  as  a sheet.  He  stopped  like 
after  his  shooting  me,  and  put  his  revolver  into  his  pouch,  and  I seen  him  aft  after  recovering  myself,  after 
fainting  on  deck.  He  had  his  elbow  on  the  bulwarks,  and  his  head  leaning  on  his  hand. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  before  you  were  shot  had  you  quit  work;  what  time  of  day  was  it? 

Answer.  I think  it  must  have  been  about  two  o’clock;  two  or  three  o’clock;  I don’t  know  rightly ; I 

was  only  just  after  coming  out  of  the  fire  hold,  after  pushing  back  the  fires  at  the  time  I quit  work. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  was  on  duty  in  the  fire-room  with  you? 

Answer.  Murphy  and  Gernon,  and  there  was  a coal-heaver  there. 

Question,  by  the  accused.  Was  there  coals  in  the  bunkers  at  the  time  of  capture  of  the  Nicholas,  and 
how  much? 

Answer.  I don’t  know;  I am  sure  there  wasn’t  much;  very  little. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  the  coals  in  the  bunkers  and  in  the  fore  hold  of  the  same  kind  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know,  I’m  sure. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  there  more  than  one  kind  of  coal  on  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  I think  there  was  two  kinds;  some  in  this  forward  hold  and  some  in  the  after  hold;  I think 
there  was  some  Welsh  coal.  I don’t  know  the  name  of  the  others;  English  coal,  or  something  like  that. 

Question  by  the  accused.  For  how  many  days  previous  to  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas  had  you  been  in 
the  habit  of  going  into  the  fire  hole? 

Answer.  Not  at  all ; that  door  was  shut  while  we  were  usiug  coal  out  of  the  side  bunkers.  Once  and 
awhile  we  might  go  in  there  of  an  evening,  when  it  was  cool  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  times  did  you  go  in  the  fire  bold  after  the  capture,  and  who  went 
with  you,  if  any  one  ? 

Ansiver.  I’d  been  in  there  every  ten  minutes  or  so,  I suppose,  after  she  had  been  captured.  No  one, 
particular,  went  with  me.  My  mate  might  have  gone  in,  and  the  coal-heaver  was  in  there. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  sure  Murphy  was  ever  in  there  ? 

Ansiccr.  I think  he  went  in  to  get  a drink,  or  the  like  of  that;  to  sit  under  the  ventilator.  I won’t  say 
that  I am  sure  of  it. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  sure  any  oue  went  there  but  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I saw  the  storekeeper  in  there ; no,  I don’t  mind  any  one  else,  unless  it  was  the  coal- 
heaver  ; the  trimmer. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  high  was  the  door  leading  to  the  fire  hold,  and  how  was  the  fire  hold 
lighted,  if  at  all  ? 

Answer.  The  door  was  about  four  feet  high,  I think,  or  four  feet  and  a half.  There  was  a lamp  huug 
inside  of  the  doorway,  near  this  ventilator;  a globe  lamp.  , 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  this  lamp  lighted  all  the  time? 

Answer.  No;  I can’t  say  it  was  lit  when  I was  shot,  but  it  was  lighted  before  that.  I don't  know 
whether  it  was  lit  or  not  when  I was  shot. 

Question  by  the  accused.  "W  hen  you  went  into  the  fore  hole  could  you  see  distinctly?  Could  you 
see  the  whole  length  of  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I couldn’t  see  distinctly;  not  unless  you  were  awhile  in  it.  I could  not  see  the 
whole  length  of  the  fore  hold.  You  might,  after  being  in  there  some  time.  I don’t  know  anything  about 
the  fore  hold  at  all.  I only  went  in  there  to  cool  myself. 


Question  by  the  accused.  How  far  from  the  door  was  Mr.  Everson  when  he  shot  you?  Could  you  see 
him  distinctly? 

Answer.  He  was  about  four  or  five  feet  from  the  door  when  he  shot  me;  about  five  feet;  I could  see  him 
distinctly;  oh,  yes,  sir.  The  hatch  was  open  that  time.  If  you  went  in  and  the  hatch  rvas  on,  you  could 
not  see  anything. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  you  first  saw  him  in  the  hold  was  he  standing  still ; if  so,  was  his  back 
to  you? 

Answer.  He  was  standing  still  like,  sideways,  sir;  his  back  was  towards  the  sides  of  the  vessel. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  go  in  the  door  quietly  ? 

Ansivcr.  Yes,  sir;  oh,  yes.  Not  a quieter  man  in  the  world  than  I am. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  you  advancing  towards  Mr.  Everson  when  he  shot  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I had  to  turn  to  the  right,  just  inside  the  door,  to  get  to  the  ventilator;  just  as  I 
walked  in  inside  the  door;  I had  no  time  to  do  anything;  to  advance  any  way. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  positive  he  did  not  say  “No  admittance”  before  you  got  in  the  door? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  “No  admittance,  ” he  said;  I was  in  the  door  then;  I rvas  inside. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  positive  he  did  not  order  you  to  stand?  Did  he  speak  more  than 
once? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  he  did  not  order  me  to  stand.  He  did  not  speak  more  than  once.  There  was  never 
a word  more.  It  was  just  half  a second,  and  it  rvas  all  done. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  not  the  coal  on  top  of  the  powder  as  well  as  around  it? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  that,  sir;  I’d  never  been  that  far. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  you  shipped  at  Liverpool  rvas  it  for  the  purpose  of  running  the 
blockade? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  and  where  did  you  first  learn  that  the  Nicholas  was  intended  to  run  the 
blockade  ? 

Answer.  Outside  the  bar  at  Nassau,  as  we  were  coming  out  of  the  port;  but  I can’t  swear  to  it.  I 
think  that  was  the  place  I first  heard  about  it.  There  was  different  reports  about-  it.  We  shipped  for 
Saint  Thomas,  Nassau,  or  any  port  in  the  West  India-  islands;  these  were  the  articles  we  signed. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  quantity  of  powder  was  there  in  the  fore  hold  ? 

Ans'Ser.  I don’t  know,  I am  sure. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  did  you  know  there  rvas  powder  there  ? 

Answer.  I saw  it  in  Nassau  at  the  bar.  I saw  it  going  down  the  hatch  there.  The  powder  was  taken 
out  of  the  Nicholas  and  put  into  a schooner  or  vessel,  there  when  we  went  into  Nassau,  and  then  taken  aboard 
again  when  we  came  out. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  were  your  wages  to  be  paid  ? Was'  any  part  of  them  to  be  paid  contin- 
gent upon  success  of  the  voyage  ? 

Answer.  We  signed  articles  at  Nassau  for  to  go  to  some  other  port  of  the  West  Indies.  I don’t  know 
the  name  of  the  ports.  My  wages  were  to  he  paid ; ten  pounds  a month  ; nothing  more  nor  less.  I heard 
some  of  them  talk  about  something  more  being  promised,  but  I didn’t  hear  it.  All  I know  about  is  my 
wages. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  hear. of  any  talk  fib  out  recapturing  tbe  Nicholas  after  she  had  coaled? 

Answer.  No,  not  at  all.  I couldn’t  hear  it,  because  I was  below  in  the  stoke-hole.  I never  heard  a word 
of  it.  This  question  is  the  very  first  I ever  heard  of  it. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Had  you  ever  been  in  the  United  States  before  you  were  sent  here  from  the 
Nicholas,  or  had  you  ever  served  in  any  capacity  on  board  an  American  vessel? 

Answer.  I had  been  in  the  United  States  before  I was  sent  here  from  the  Nicholas.  I think  it  was 
about  twelve  or  thirteen  years  ago.  I was  on  the  steamship  Baltic,  belonging  to  Mr.  Collins.  I was  fireman 
on  her. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  James  O’Neill,  as  above  recorded,  is  now  read  over  to  him,  and  approved 
by  him  as  correct. 

The  witness  now  retires. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  September  the  twenty-first,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


14 


FIFTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Wednesday,  September  21,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  with  his  counsel  was  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  judge  advocate  now  calls  Thomas  Gernon,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn  by  the  president  of  the  court 
in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories,  testified  as  follows : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  is  your  name,  and  rank  in  the  United  States  navy? 

Answer.  My  name  is  Thomas  Gernon.  I am  a first-class  fireman  in  the  navy. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  attached  to  the  United  States  steamer  Victoria  at  the  time 
she  captured  the  “Nicholas  I?” 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  State  all  your  knowledge  in  reference  to  the  shooting  of  James  O’Neill 
on  board  the  steamer  Nicholas  I. 

Answer.  I went  on  board  the  Nicholas  I on  the  twenty-first  of  March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three, 
the  day  she  was  captured,  between  nine  and  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning.  I was  in  the  first  boat  that  boarded 
her.  I was  the  second  man  on  board.  I was  the  first  on  board  after  the  officers,  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused, 
and  Mr.  Webster,  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Victoria.  There  were  a number  of  the  men  belonging  to  her  in 
the  gangway  when  we  came  on  board.  One  of  them  had  a bottle.  I supposed  it  was  whiskey  or  some- 
thing. He  offered  it  to  me  to  drink,  and  I refused  it.  I turned  to  the  men  who  were  coming  behind  me  up 
the  gangway  and  told  them  not  to  have  any  of  it.  I then  went  to  the  engine-room,  accompanied  by  Mr. 
Webster,  the  chief  engineer.  He  told  me  to  go  to  the  fire-room  and  see  what  water  was  in  the  boilers,  and 
what  steam  there  was.  I was  down  before  him;  he  came  after  me.  I was  the  first  down  in  the  engine-room. 
I saw  there  was  sufficient  water  in  the  boilers,  and  came  to  the  engine-room  again  and  looked  at  the  steam- 
gauge.  Mr.  Webster  was  standing  by  the  steam-gauge  when  I came  back  to  him.  I think  I told  him  there 
was  six  pounds  and  a half  of  steam  on  the  gauge.  I think  I told  him,  but  am  not  certain  about  the  number 
of  pounds.  I went  to  the  fire-room  again,  and  soon  after  there  was  orders  to  get  under  way.  She  was  not 
at  anchor;  the  engines  were  stopped;  the  orders  were  to  go  ahead.  The  men  belonging  to  her  worked  the 
vessel  up  to  where  the  fleet  was  lying. 

The  Nicholas  was  captured  off  Little  river,  North  Carolina;  the  fleet  was  lying  off  Wilmington;  1 don’t 
know  the  exact  distance  from  Little  river  ; I believe  they  call  it  twenty  miles.  I judge  the  Nicholas  was 
about  two  miles  and  a half  or  three  miles  from  land  at  the  time  of  her  capture.  In  coming  from  Little  river 
to  the  fleet  a number  of  the  men  in  the  fire-room  got  drunk,  and  became  quarrelsome  among  themselves.  I 
told  them  to  knock  off  fighting — they  were  fighting  in  the  fire-room  at  the  time.  They  didn’t  seem  to  pay 
any  attention  to  me,  and  I told  them  that  if  they  didn’t  obey  my  orders  I would  shoot  them.  There  was 
one  man,  he  told  me  “For  God’s  sake  not  to  shoot  them,  that  he  would  get  them  away.”  This  man  is  one 
of  the  witnesses  I have  seen  in  the  other  room;  his  name  is  Murphy. 

I went  to  Mr.  Webster,  the  chief  engineer,  and  told  him  I couldn’t  do  nothing  with  the  men — that  I 
would  have  to  use  my  arms  on  them.  Mr.  Webster  sent  them  on  deck.  I think  they  were  all  sent  on  deck 
except  Murphy.  I think  he  was  the  only  one  I had  down  there  at  the  time.  I think  oue  of  the  engineers 
belonging  to  her  at  the  time  she  was  captured  was  down  there  and  was  drunk  ; he  got  interfering  with  my 
duty,  and  I sent  him  on  deck.  I had  occasion  to  go  on  deck  myself  some  time  afterwards,  and  in  going  for- 
ward to  the  round-house  I saw  the  men  again  fighting  on  the  forecastle;  these  were,  some  of  them,  the  same 
men,  and  I think  some  of  the  men  on  deck  were  quarrelling  with  them.  Then  I drew  a pistol  and  told 
them  if  they  would  have  any  more  of  it  I would  blow  their  brains  out.  There  was  one  man  in  particular 
who  was  most  quarrelsome.  1 didn’t  know  his  name.  I recognized  him  as  one  of  the  men  that  vras  in  the 
fire-room  at  the  time  they  were  quarrelling  there.  I believe  he  was  a coal-passer.  I dragged  him  away  from 
the  man  he  was  fighting  with,  and  shoved  him  aft  on  the  quarter-deck;  went  along  with  him  as  far  as  the 
after  gangway.  I returned  to  the  fire-room  again.  I think  it  was  some  time  after  I went  down  that  this 
O’Neill  came  down  and  said  he  had  made  arrangements  to  work  home  in  the  vessel,  or  something  to  that 


15 


effect.  He  went  to  work,  and  tliey  banked  tlie  fires.  There  was  no  one  down  there  at  the  time  but  myself, 
Murphy,  O’Neill,  and  I think  two  coal-passers;  no  one  else  that  I know.  The  Nicholas  was  at  anchor  at 
this  time  with  the  fleet  off  Wilmington. 

Immediately  after  the  fires  were  banked,  Mr.  Webster,  I think  it  was,  wanted  to  know  from  me  if  I 
could  find  out  how  much  coal  was  in  her.  I weut  into  the  fore  hold  to  see  what  coal  was  there,  and  in  passing- 
through  in  the  dark  I struck  my  foot  against  a keg,  as  I supposed  it  was  at  that  time.  There  was  salt-bags 
on  top  of  these  casks,  and  I took  this  one  out  and  rolled  it  out  to  see  what  it  was.  It  was  a small  firkin;  it 
would  hold  about  fifty  pounds  of  powder;  about  fifty  pounds  of  powder  I suppose  was  in  them.  Hearing 
from  the  men  that  there  was  powder  in  the  vessel,  I concluded  that  it  must  be  powder  that  was  there.  I 
went  on  deck  and  reported  to  Mr.  Everson  that  there  was  powder  in  the  fore  hold;  that  I would  like  to  have  a 
sentry,  as  the  men  were  going  in  there  with  naked  lights,  and  the  men  had  been  smoking  in  there  previous  to 
this.  Mr.  Everson  came  down  after  me  into  the  engine-room,  and  asked  me  where  it  was;  I brought  him 
into  the  fore  hold,  and  it  was  dark  in  there,  and  he  told  me  to  get  a light ; so  I told  him  I had  nothing  but  a 
naked  light;  that  I didn’t  know  where  there  were  any  covered  lights  in  the  engine-room;  he  told  me  to  see 
and  find  one.  I came  out  and  met  O’Neill  in  the  engine-room,  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  where  there  were 
any  globe  lamps.  He  said  he  did,  and  I told  him  to  go  and  find  one.  Just  at  that  time  I found  one  myself 
that  was  hanging  up  over  my  head  in  the  engine-room,  and  I took  it  down  and  went  into  the  fire-room  and 
took  some  fire  out  of  one  of  the  furnaces  and  lit  it.  I put  it  into  the  globe,  and  was  taking  it  through  the 
engine-room  when  I heard  the  report  of  the  pistol.  Before  I heard  the  report,  I heard  Mr.  Everson’s  voice 
telling  somebody  to  clear  out.  I was  going  in  with  the  light.  I was  about  midway  in  the  engine-room  when 
O’Neill  came  out  and  told  me  he  was  shot.  He  had  his  hand  on  his  leg.  I think  I asked  him  where  he  was 
hit,  and  then  I saw  the  blood  trickling  down  his  pantaloons.  I told  him  to  get  on  deck  as  quick  as  he  could, 
and  the  surgeon  was  on  board,  and  that  he  would  attend  to  him.  He  passed  me  then,  and  I saw  him  go  aft 
into  the  fire-room,  and  I looked  after  him  to  see  if  he  would  go  up  the  fire-room  ladder,  and  I saw  him  take 
hold  of  the  ladder  and  attempt  to  get  up,  and  he  wasn’t  able.  So  I went  in  with  the  lamp  to  Mr.  Everson, 
and  met  him  in  the  coal-bunker — the  forward  hold.  I told  him  that  he  had  shot  that  man,  and  that  he 
oughtn’t  to  have  done  it,  for  he  was  working.  He  made  reply — I couldn’L  be  certain,  I couldn’t  say  on 
oath — “It’s  all  right;”  he  made  a reply  something  to  that  effect.  Mr.  Everson  asked  me  if  I thought  the 
powder  run  to  the  bulkhead.  I went  in  on  top  of  the  salt,  and  saw  that  the  salt  was  tiered  all  the  way  for- 
ward to  the  bulkhead,  and  I judged  that  the  powder  was  all  underneath;  I came  back,  telling  him  so;  he 
told  me  to  keep  a good  lookout,  and  see  that  nobody  went  in  there — to  be  very  careful.  I told  him  that  I 
would  see  that  nobody  went  in  there  while  I was  there.  I left  him,  then  going  into  the  fire-room  again; 
there  I found  O’Neill  lying  almost  in  a fainting  condition;  a quantity  of  blood  around  him.  At  that  time  the 
surgeon  was  down.  I am  not  certain  whether  he  was  down  at  the  time,  or  on  the  ladder  coming  down.  I 
think  he  was  on  the  ladder  coming  down  at  the  time  I got  there.  It  was  the  surgeon  of  the  Victoria — Sur- 
geon Parke.  I got  a knife  and  cut  the  pantaloons  and  a thick  pair  of  drawers  O’Neill  had  on,  and  found  that 
the  ball  had  entered  the  fleshy  part  of  his  thigh.  He  was  bleeding  badly  at  the  time,  and  I took  a handker- 
chief off  one  of  the  men’s  necks,  and,  by  the  surgeon’s  orders,  bound  it  round  the  leg  above  the  wound.  I 
drew  it  tight  to  stop  the  circulation  of  the  blood;  I put  a piece  of  wood  into  it  to  screw  it  tight.  The  wound 
still  continued  to  bleed,  and  we  had  to  get  another  handkerchief  on  his  leg.  Then  Dr.  Parke  asked  me  to 
lift  his  leg  and  wipe  the  blood  off  the  other  side  for  to  see  if  the  ball  had  passed  through;  I did  so,  and  found 
that  there  was  a wound  on  the  other  side.  I told  Dr.  Parke  of  it,  and  I think  he  said  he  was  afraid  the  ball 
had  lodged  in  the  leg.  I then  took  him  on  my  back  and  carried  him  up  on  deck  through  the  engine-room  ; 
they  wanted  to  hoist  him  up  with  the  ash- whip,  but  the  doctor  and  myself  thought  it  might  disturb  the  wound, 
and  that  it  would  be  better  to  carry  him  up.  After  we  got  him  on  deck  and  laid  him  there,  it  was  very  cold, 
and  he  fainted.  So  Dr.  Parke  weut  away,  and  I staid  with  O’Neill  till  he  came  back.  He  came  back  with  a 
tumbler,  and  I think  it  was  wine  he  had  in  it.  At  the  time  we  had  O’Neill  on  deck,  there  was  one  of  the  men 
belonging  to  the  Nicholas;  I found  out  afterwards  he  was  the  second  mate  of  her;  he  got  talking  very  excit- 
edly about  the  affair,  and  made  use  of  some  expressions  that  I didn’t  like.  So  I weut  to  one  of  the  officers 
on  board,  Mr.  Myers,  an  ensign,  and  reported  it  to  him;  after  that  I went  into  the  engine-room  again.  I saw 
O’Neill  the  next  day  on  the  berth-deck  of  the  Victoria  when  I went  on  board  to  get  my  clothes  and  sigu  my 
accounts  before  going  home  in  the  Nicholas.  This  was  the  last  I saw  of  O’Neill.  One  of  the  expressions 
the  second  mate  made  use  of  was,  he  called  us  all  a pack  of  damned  sons  of  bitches. 


16 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  navy'? 

Answer.  The  first  time  1 was  in  the  navy  I went  out  in  the  San  Jacinto  when  she  went  to  the  coast  of 
Africa.  I think  it  was  in  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-seven  she  went  out.  I’ve  been  in  the  navy  ever  since 
I got  paid  off  from  the  San  Jacinto  just  as  this  war  was  breaking  out,  and  joined  the  Victoria. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  first  went  down  into  the  engine-room  of  the  Nicholas,  how 
many  men  were  down  there  and  in  the  fire-room? 

Answer.  There  were  quite  a number.  I judge  there  was  about  seven  or  eight,  in  all,  together,  between 
engineers  and  firemen. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  O’Neill  there  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I didn’t  recognize  any  of  them  at  that  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  recognize  O’Neill  among  the  men  down  below  in  the  fire-room 
or  engine-room  at  any  time  before  he  came  down  and  said  he  had  made  an  arrangement  to  work  the  vessel 
home? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I did.  I guess  it  was  about  an  hour  after  the  capture  that  O’Neill  came  down  and 
got  talking.  It  rvas  O’Neill  and  Murphy  that  worked  the  vessel  up  from  Little  river  to  Wilmington ; at 
least  they  didn’t  work  her  all  the  way  up.  There  was  a shift  of  watches,  I think. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  other  of  the  firemen  of  the  Nicholas  work  on  the  vessel  on  the 
way  up  to  Wilmington,  besides  O’Neill  and  Murphy? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; there  were  some  more  of  them  at  work. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  other  of  the  firemen  from  the  Victoria,  besides  yourself,  help 
work  the  vessel  up  to  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I was  the  only  fireman  aboard  from  the  Victoria. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  what  time  were  the  watches  shifted? 

Answer.  I can’t  tell  the  time.  There  was  no  clock  in  the  engine-room.  They  generally  shift  the  watch 
at  eight  bells,  or  twelve  o’clock. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  were  you  going  up  from  Little  river  to  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  It  took  us  about  two  hours  to  two  hours  and  a half. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  before  you  came  to  anchor  off  Wilmington  was  it  that 
O’Neill  came  down  and  said  he  had  made  an  arrangement  to  work  in  the  vessel  home? 

Answer.  I think  we  were  off  Wilmington.  We  must  have  been,  for  it  was  a very  short  time  after  that 
that  the  fires  were  banked. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  had  you  been  at  anchor  oft' Wilmington  when  the  shooting 
took  place? 

Ansuier.  It  couldn’t  be  very  long.  I couldn’t  say  positively  what  time  the  shooting  took  place.  There 
was  no  clock  in  the  engine-room.  In  fact,  I didn’t  see  any  clock  on  the  vessel  while  I was  aboard  of  her. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  the  men  had  been  ordered  on  deck  by  Mr.  Webster  did 
O’Neill  come  down  again? 

Ansuier.  It  was  some  time;  because  O’Neill,  at  the  time  he  was  ordered  on  deck,  was  very  drunk.  The 
second  time  he  came  down  he  appeared  to  me  to  be  sober ; soberer  than  what  he  was. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Are  you  sure  it  was  O’Neill  that  was  very  drunk?  How  do  you 
distinguish  him,  in  your  recollection,  from  the  other  men? 

Answer.  I distinguish  him,  in  my  recollection,  by  his  working  the  vessel  in  the  early  part  of  the  morning 
when  we  were  coming  up.  I am  certain  that  he  was  very  drunk.  He  seemed  very  anxious  to  get  home  in 
the  vessel.  I recognize  him  by  that.  He  came  to  me  and  spoke  to  me  about  it.  In  fact,  they  were  all 
drunk,  with  the  exception  of  Murphy  and  a coal-passer  that  was  down  there,  that  I saw. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  O’Neill  came  down  the  second  time  was  he  quiet  or  noisy? 

Answer.  He  was  quiet.  If  he  had  been  noisy  I would  have  sent  him  up  there  again. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  he  sober  enough  when  he  came  down  the  second  time  to  under- 
stand what  he  was  about — to  attend  to  his  duties  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  O’Neill  drink,  any  time  on  the  day  of  the  capture,  before 
lie  was  shot? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I saw  none  of  them  drink. 


17 


Question  by  tlie  judge  advocate.  Wliat  was  the  condition  of  the  fires,  engines,  and  machinery  of  the 
Nicholas  when  you  went  aboard  ? 

Answer.  The  fires  were  in  good  condition.  The  engines  and  machinery  were  all  in  working  order,  to 
the  best  of  my  opinion,  with  the  exception  of  one  of  the  pipes ; the  injection  pipe,  I think,  on  the  starboard 
engine,  was  burst. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  the  men  of  the  Nicholas  were  lighting  in  the  fire-room  and  on 
deck,  were  they  fighting  among  themselves  only,  or  were  they  quarrelling  with  any  of  the  men  or  officers  of 
the  Victoria? 

Answer.  Among  themselves  altogether. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  men  from  the  Victoria  boarded  the  Nicholas? 

Answer.  1 should  think  there  was  five  men  in  the  boat  pulling  her,  and  the  two  officers  and  myself.  I 
think  that  was  all  in  the  first  boat  that  boarded  her. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  men  from  the  Victoria  were  on  board  the  Nicholas  while 
you  were  going  up  from  Little  river  to  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  I can’t  say;  I don’t  know. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  large  a crew  had  the  Nicholas? 

Answer.  That  I can’t  tell,  sir ; I don’t  know. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  of  her  officers  or  crew  taken  on  board  the  Victoria  before 
you  started  for  Wilmington? 

Ansioer.  I do  not  know,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  About  how  many  of  the  Nicholas’s  men  were  fighting  on  deck  when 
you  saw  them  ? 

Answer.  I saw  two  actually  fighting,  and  there  seemed  to  be  quite  a crowd  around  them.  They  all 
seemed  to  be  very  noisy.  Both  these  men  that  were  fighting  were  lying  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  O’Neill  came  down  the  second  time  how  did  he  seem  disposed ; 
to  work  cheerfully  and  do  all  he  could  to  help  you,  or  the  contrary  ? 

Answer.  He  did  what  lie  could  to  help  me ; he  was  disposed  to  work  cheerfully ; he  showed  this  by 
doing  everything  I told  him;  he  obeyed  my  orders;  he  showed  me  the  leads  of  some  of  the  pipes. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  you  came  to  anchor  off  Wilmington  was  it  before  you 
discovered  the  powder  in  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  I should  judge  it  would  be  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a half;  I should  guess. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  light  at  all  in  the  fore  hold  when  you  went  in  to  see  how 
much  coal  there  was  there  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  only  what  was  from  deck;  the. hatch  was  off. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  forward  was  the  hatchway  where  the  hatch  was  off  ? 

Answer.  The  hatch  that  was  open  was  abaft  the  foremast — between  the  foremast  and  the  engine-room 
hatch. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  did  you  do  with  the  keg  of  powder  that  you  rolled  out  after  you 
had  seen  what  it  was? 

Answer.  1 replaced  it,  sir ; put  it  where  I got  it  from. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  O’Neill  at  the  time  you  came  out  of  the  fore  hold  and  went 
on  deck  to  report  the  fact  of  the  powder  being  there  to  Mr.  Everson? 

Answer.  He  was  standing  in  an  alley- way  that  divided  the  engine-room  and  fire-room. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about  the  powder,  or  he  to  you? 

Answer.  Before  I went  and  reported,  I said  to  him  that  that  was  powder  in  there.  He  said  it  was,  and 
something  about  its  being  in  a dangerous  place,  or  something  to  that, effect. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocte.  At  the  time  you  came  out  of  the  fore  hold,  after  discovering  the  powder, 
who  were  in  the  engine-room  and  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  There  was  no  one  in  the  engine-room  but  myself.  O’Neill  was  where  I told  you,  and  Murphy 
was  inside  of  him  again  in  the  fire-room.  That’s  all  I saw.  There  might  have  been  more  men  inside  in  the 
fire-room  that  I couldn’t  see. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  forward  hold  of  the  Nicholas  at  the 
time  of  her  capture? 

Answer.  I judge  there  was  about  from  eight  to  nine  tons. 

3 


18 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  coal  on  top  of  the  powder,  or  how? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; it  was  against  the  bulkhead  which  divided  the  engine-room  from  the  fore  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  anything  to  separate  the  coal  from  the  powder? 

Answer.  Nothing,  sir,  only  the  salt  that  was  on  top.  There  was  no  bulkhead  between  the  one  that  sep- 
arated the  engine-room  from  the  forward  hold,  and  the  one  that  separated  the  forward  hold  from  the  forecastle, 
where  the  men  slept.  The  forward  hold  went  clean  forward  into  the  eyes  of  the  ship.  They  had  been  using 
the  coal  out  of  the  forward  hold,  and  I judged,  from  the  appearance  of  the  bags  of  salt,  that  they  had  coal 
chock  forward,  all  over  the  salt  and  the  powder. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  was  the  powder  stowed  ? 

Answer.  It  was  stowed — I think  it  was  a single  tier — right  on  the  keelson,  and  the  salt  in  bags  on  top  of 
that.  There  was  no  coal  on  top  of  the  salt  when  she  was  captured. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  keg  that  you  struck  against  and  rolled  out  under  the  salt 
bags  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  just  under  the  edge — it  was  the  first  tier.  I didn’t  have  much  difficulty  in 
taking  it  out. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Describe,  as  accurately  as  you  can,  the  relative  position  of  the  parts 
of  the  Nicholas  I forward  from  the  boilers  inclusive,  and  state  particularly  what  parts  were  on  the  same  level. 

Answer.  The  boilers  were  about  amidships,  the  doors  of  the  furnaces  facing  forward.  The  boilers  went 
clear  athwartsliips,  a small  division,  but  not  sufficient  for  any  one  to  get  past.  The  fire-room  came  next 
forward  of  the  boilers  ; that  ran  clean  athwartsliips.  The  fire-room  was  about  ten  feet  fore  and  aft ; then 
came  an  iron  bulkhead,  dividing  off  some  coal-bunkers.  The  coal-bunkers  went  right  across  the  vessel,  the 
same  as  the  boilers.  They  were  about  fourteen  or  fifteen  feet  fore  and  aft.  Then  another  iron  bulkhead, 
dividing  the  engine-room  from  the  bunkers.  In  this  the  archway  was  formed  which  gave  a passage  from  the 
fire-room  to  communicate  with  the  engine-room.  The  bunkers  ran  clear  athwartship,  except  this  archway. 
After  this  second  iron  bulkhead  came  the  engine-room.  The  after  part  of  the  engines  came  to  the  bulkhead 
which  separated  the  engines  from  the  bunkers ; her  air-pumps  were  there.  There  were  two  engines,  one  on 
each  side,  with  a passage  way  between,  and  in  this  passage  way  was  her  starting  gear.  Then  her  starting 
gear  was  there,  her  levers  and  eccentrics.  In  standing  in  that  passage  way  the  cylinders  "were  level  with  your 
head,  or  taller  than  what  a man  would  be.  Over  that  was  a gallery  or  platform,  on  a level  with  the  top  of 
the  cylinders.  We  went  on  this  gallery  by  an  iron  ladder,  which  was  removable — it  had  to  be  removed 
when  they  had  occasion  to  take  coal  from  the  fore  hold.  From  the  cylinders  worked  the  piston  and  connecting- 
rods  ; they  reached  the  main  deck;  they  worked  over  the  main  deck.  The  Nicholas  was  a side- wheel. 
From  bulkhead  to  bulkhead  in  the  engine-room  would  be  about  twenty-five  to  thirty  feet  fore  and  aft,  to  the 
best  of  my  judgment.  There  was  a passage  way  forward  of  the  cylinders  to  get  to  her  injections  and 
donkey.  You  could  pass  clear  round  the  engines  in  the  engine-room  by  passage  ways.  Then  came  a wooden 
bulkhead,  which  separated  the  engine-room  from  the  fore  hold.  There  was  a doorway  cut  in  the  bulkhead, 
through  which  you  got  from  the  engine-room  into  the  fore  hold.  The  fire-room,  the  alley  way  between  the 
bunkers  under  the  arch,  the  passage  way  between  the  engines  and  the  fore  hold,  were  all  on  the  same  level, 
with  the  exception  of  the  engine-room,  which  was  sunk  about  six  inches  below  the  floor  of  the  fire-room. 
This  I remember,  because  we  had  to  put  a piece  of  board  there  in  wheeling  coal  through.  The  fore  hold  fore 
and  aft,  I think,  would  be  over  forty  feet.  It  didn’t  run  into  the  eyes  of  her,  because  there  was  another  bulk- 
head there  which  divided  the  forecastle  from  the  forward  hold.  There  was  a between-decks,  a dock  over  the 
lower  hold  where  goods  were  pac  ed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Look  at  the  plan  now  shown  to  you,  and  marked  “A,” — S.  C.  P.. 
and  state  whether  or  not  it  is  a correct  plan  of  the  parts  of  the  Nicholas  I,  from  the  boilers  inclusive,  forward  l 

Answer.  The  plan  is  not  correct  in  this : because  there  is  no  coal-bunkers  represented  as  forward  of  the 
fire-room,  as  there  shorild  be,  and  a double  bulkhead  with  the  alley  way.  It  is  also  not  correct  in  representing 
a bulkhead  between  the  coal  and  the  powder.  There  was  none  there.  The  ventilator  represented  in  the 
plan  I do  not  recognize.  It  might  have  escaped  my  notice — I didn’t  see  it. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  examined  the  forward  hold,  after  coming  to  anchor  off 
Wilmington,  was  there  coal  on  both  sides  of  the  doorway  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  close  up  to  the  bulkhead  which  separated  the  forward  hold  from  the  engines;  the 
largest  quantity  was  on  the  port  side. 


19 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  forward  into  the  hold  did  the  coal  extend  at  this  time? 

Answer.  It  went  up  as  far  as  the  first  row  of  powder,  or  the  port  side ; it  was  clear  of  the  powder  on 
the  starboard  side. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  high  was  the  coal  piled  at  this  time  in  the  forward  hold  ? 

Answer.  Not  very  high ; there  wasn’t  much  of  it,  and  there  was  a large  space. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  from  the  bulkhead,  between  the  engine-room  and  the  forward 
hold,  was  it  to  where  the  first  row  of  powder  was  stowed  ? 

Answer.  It  was,  I guess,  over  fifteen  or  sixteen  feet — fifteen  or  twenty  feet.  The  powder  was  stowed 
right  athwartships  from  port  to  starboard.  I can’t  say  whether  there  was  one  or  two  tiers. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  bunkers  next  to  the  fire-room  of  the 
Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her  capture  ? 

Answer.  Very  little,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  other  coal  on  board  besides  what  was  there  and  what 
was  in  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; there  was  coal  on  the  between  decks  of  the  fore  hold ; I should  judge  there  was  very 
near  about  fifteen  tons  between  decks ; there  was  about  twenty-five  or  thirty  tons  in  all  on  board  when  we 
captured  her. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting,  how  far  were  you  from  the  doorway  into 
the  fore  hold  1 

Answer.  I was  about  midway  in  the  passage  between  the  engines  ; it  was  about  ten  feet,  I guess,  from 
where  I was  standing  at  the  time  to  the  entrance  to  the  fore  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  a time  had  elapsed  after  you  sent  O’Neill  for  a light  and 
the  time  you  heard  the  report  of  the  pistol  ? 

Answer.  About  three  or  four  minutes,  sir ; it  couldn’t  be  more — while  I was  lighting  a lights 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Could  you  see  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  from  where  you  stood  at  the 
time  you  heard  the  report  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Could  you  see  O’Neill? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Before  the  shooting,  had  Mr.  Everson  given  any  orders  about  going 
into  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  not  before.  I gave  orders  myself  when  I went  on  deck  to  report  it.  I left  orders  for 
none  of  them  to  go  in  there  till  I had  come  back. 

And  thereupon  the  court  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  September  twenty-second,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

SIXTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York,  Thursday , September  22,  1S64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  together  with  his  counsel,  were  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  examination  of  the  witness  Thomas  Gernon  is  now  resumed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  man  that  you  dragged  away  from  the  fight  on  the  forecastle, 
and  shoved  aft  on  to  the  quarter-deck,  O’Neill,  or  who  was  it  ? 

Answer.  It  wasn’t  O’Neill ; it  was  one  of  the  men  belonging  to  the  fire-room ; they  told  me  he  was  a coal- 
passer.  I don’t  know  his  name. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  went  up  on  deck  the  first  time,  were  there  any 
sentries  at  any  of  the  hatchways  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; the  first  time  I went  up  there  were  sentries  at  the  hatch  that  I went  up — the  fire- 
room  hatch.  I couldn’t  say  for  all. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  went  up  to  report  about  the  powder,  were  there 
sentries  at  the  hatchways  '? 


20 


Ansiver.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  a sentry  at  the  engine-room  hatch  then.  I went  up  that  way  then. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  O’Neill  come  down  the  second  time  after  or  before  you  went  up 
on  deck  the  first  time  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  I went  up  on  deck  the  first  time  that  O’Neill  came  down  the  second  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  sent  off  of  the  vessel 
after  you  came  to  anchor  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  the  men  had  been  sent  on  deck  by  Mr.  Webster  from  the  fire- 
room  and  engine-room,  did  any  of  them  come  down  again  except  O’Neill  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; none  of  the  firemen — some  of  the  engineers  came  down. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  of  them  came  down,  and  how  long  did  they  remain  down 
there  ? 

Answer.  I couldn’t  say  how  many ; not  many  ; one  in  particular  I remember,  they  called  him  the  third 
engineer ; he  didn’t  remain  long. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  of  these  engineers  down  there  at  the  time  of  the  shooting? 

Ansiver.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  lit  the  lamp  in  the  fire-room,  just  before  the  shooting,  was 
there  any  one  in  the  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; there  was  two  men — one  of  them  was  this  Murphy,  and  the  other  was,  I believe,  a 
coal-passer. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  went  on  deck  to  report  about  the  powder,  how  many 
of  the  Victoria’s  men  did  you  see  about  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  I couldn’t  say ; I suppose  I met  one  or  two  of  them  in  my  passage  aft. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  did  you  see  about 
the  vessel  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I seen  three ; the  officers  they  were  aft.  I couldn’t  say  I saw  any  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas. 
There  was  one  of  the  crew  of  the  Victoria  stationed  at  the  companion  leading  down  into  the  cabin. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  armed ; and  if  so,  how  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  the  men  of  the  Victoria  you  saw  on  board  the  Nicholas  armed, 
and  how  ? 

Answer.  All  of  them  that  I seen — the  prize  crew ; the  men  were  armed  with  cutlass  and  pistol ; the  one 
at  the  cabin  door  had  a musket. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  went  on  deck  to  report  about  the  powder,  was  there 
any  quarrelling  or  disturbance  on  deck  that  you  saw  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Would  you  have  been  likely  to  have  seen  it  had  there  been  any? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ; 1 would  have  seen  it  if  there  had  been  any  aft.  There  might  have  been  quarrelling  in 
the  forecastle  that  might  have  escaped  my  notice. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  when  you  reported  to  him 
about  the  powder  ? 

Answer.  He  was  aft  on  the  quarter-deck. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  any  one  with  him  ? 

Answer.  There  were  two  or  more  officers  there  at  the  time ; Mr.  Meyers  and  Mr.  Sawyers,  both  ensigns, 
that  I saw  on  the  quarter-deck ; I can’t  say  that  there  was  any  one  standing  with  Mr.  Everson  at  the  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  O’Neill  drunk  the  first  time  he  came  down  below  and  talked 
with  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; he  was  drunk  the  first  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  been  working  at  all  on  the  vessel  after  her  capture  before  he 
came  down  the  second  time  and  said  he  had  made  an  arrangement  ? 

Ansiver.  Yes,  he  was ; it  was  after  she  was  captured;  I think  he  was  working  until  the  watch  was 
changed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  watch  changed  before  or  after  Mr.  Webster  ordered  the 
men  to  go  on  deck  ? 


21 


Answer.  Afterwards. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  before  the  watch  was  changed  had  O’Neill  come  down  the 
first  time  ? 

Ansiver.  I think  O’Neill  was  in  the  fire-room  at  the  time  I first  went  down  there.  I think  pretty  much 
all  the  men  were  in  the  fire-room  that  belonged  there,  at  the  time  I first  went  down.  They  were  coming 
down  and  going  all  the  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  If  O’Neill  worked  until  the  watch  was  changed,  and  it  was  changed 
after  Mr.  Webster  ordered  the  men  on  deck,  how  was  it  that  Murphy  was  the  only  one  left  down  there,  as  you 
stated  yesterday  ? 

Answer.  Because  he  was  sober;  I was  mistaken  if  I stated  that  O’Neill  worked  until  the  watch  was 
changed;  he  worked  until  the  men  were  ordered  on  deck  by  Mr.  Webster,  and  the  watch  was  changed  after 
this,  and  O’Neill  was  ordered  on  deck,  and  went  with  the  other  men. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  sober  at  the  time  of  the  shooting,  or 
was  lie  at  all  under  the  influence  of  liquor  ? 

Answer.  He  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  About  what  tonnage  was  the  Nicholas  I ? 

Answer.  I couldn’t  say  as  to  her  tonnage ; she  was  large ; she  had  great  depth  of  hold  ; I should  say 
she  was  as  large  as  the  James  Adger,  a vessel  we  have  in  the  service. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  were  you  in  getting  to  the  anchorage  after  the  capture? 

Answer.  I suppose  about  two  hours  and  a half  or  three  hours. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  the  keg  which  you  say  you  struck  your  foot  against  any  distance  from  the 
rest  of  the  powder?  If  so,  say  how  far. 

Answer.  It  was  no  distance ; it  was  in  the  tier. 

Question  by  the  Court.  How  far  was  it  from  the  bulkhead  of  the  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  I should  judge  it  was  near  forty  feet. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  there  anything  in  the  manner  or  conduct  of  O’Neill  that  could  reasonably 
have  caused  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the  accused  that  he,  O’Neill,  intended  mischief? 

Answer.  Nothing  that  I seen. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Had  the  accused  seen  O’Neill  before  he  shot  him;  and  did  he  know  that  O’Neill 
had  been  working  under  your  order? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  that  he  seen  him  before ; I don’t  know  that  he  was  aware  that  O’Neill  had 
been  working  under  my  order. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  was  O’Neill  doing  or  about  to  do  when  he  was  shot  by  the  accused  ; what 
had  he,  if  anything,  in  his  hands  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  what  O’Neill  was  doing  or  about  to  do  when  he  was  shot  by  the  accused ; I 
didn’t  see  him  when  he  was  shot ; I don’t  know  that  he  had  anything  in  his  hands. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  you  ever  know  the  accused  to  be  intoxicated  before;  and  if  so,  how  often  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ; I never  knew  of  the  accused  being  intoxicated  before. 

Question  by  the  Court.  How  far  from  where  the  powder  was  stored  was  the  ventilator  where  the  firemen 
went  to  cool  themselves  ? Also  state  how  far  from  the  ventilator  was  the  place  where  the  shooting  of  O’Neill 
took  place. 

Answer.  I don’t  know  of  any  ventilator  being  in  the  Nicholas  ; I never  seen  one.  I don’t  know  of  any 
particular  place  where  the  firemen  went  to  cool  themselves.  Our  own  men,  in  coming  home,  never  went 
forward  of  the  engine  to  cool  themselves ; they  always  went  and  stood  in  the  alley-way  between  the  fire- 
room  and  the  engine-room. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  was  the  general  conduct  of  O’Neill,  the  person  who  was  shot,  from  the 
time  you  went  on  board  the  Nicholas  I up  to  the  moment  of  his  being  shot  ? 

Answer.  The  first  time  he  was  very  talkative  and  noisy ; the  second  time  he  came  down  he  was  very- 
quiet;  done  everything  I told  him. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  you  hear  the  accused  assign  any  reason  for  shooting  O’Neill  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  You  state  that  you  went  to  the  fire-room  to  light  the  lamp ; from  that  time 
until  you  heard  the  shot  fired,  did  you  hear  of  any  altercation  between  the  accused  and  O’Neill  ? 


22 


Answer.  No,  sir  ; I heard  the  accused’s  voice  telling  what  I thought  was  to  clear  out,  and  immediately 
after  I heard  the  report  of  the  pistol. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  grating  or  opening  in  the  deck  over  the  fore  hold  besides 
the  hatchways  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  coal  the  Nicholas  before  she  came  north? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  she  coaled? 

Answer.  In  Beaufort,  North  Carolina. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  leaving  the  anchorage  off  Wilmington  was  she  coaled  ? 

Ansiuer.  I should  say  it  was  about  fifteen  hours  afterwards  that  we  commenced  coaling. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  coal  stowed  in  the  fore  hold? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  It  was  all  put  in  the  bunkers  in  the  fire-room;  all  the  coal  that  we  took  in  at  Beau 
fort.  It  was  all  put  in  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate  Did  you  coal  again  before  reaching  the  north  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  you  at  any  time  since  the  affair  hear  the  accused  say  why  he  shot  O’Neill? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  the  powder  taken  out  of  the  Nicholas  after  her  capture?  If  so,  where  put, 
and  how  many  kegs  of  it? 

Answer.  There  was  none  of  it  taken  out  of  her  while  I was  in  her. 

The  court  and  judge  advocate  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  accused  proceeds  to  cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  after  the  boarding  of  the  Nicholas  before  you  went  below,  who 
accompanied  you,  and  who  did  you  find  there? 

Answer.  It  was  about  two  or  three  minutes  after  the  boarding  of  the  Nicholas  before  I went  below.  Hr. 
Webster,  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Victoria,  accompanied  me.  I found  there  men  who  belonged  to  the  fire 
department  of  the  Nicholas.  There  were  quite  a number  of  them  there  at  the  time.  I can’t  say  what 
number. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Nicholas  there  at  that  time?  If  so,  did  Mr. 
Webster  have  any,  and  what,  conversation  with  him,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  firemen  of  the  Nicholas 
working  the  ship  to  New  York  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I seen  him  there.  I don’t  know  whether  Mr.  Webster  had  any  conversation  with  him. 
I left  the  engine-room  and  went  into  the  fire-room. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  after  boarding  before  the  Nicholas  started  ahead,  and  who  were  in 
fire  and  engine  rooms  at  the  time? 

Anstver.  I should  think  it  would  be  about  half  an  hour  after  boarding  before  the  Nicholas  started  ahead. 
There  were  a number  of  the  men  in  the  fire-room,  and  a number  of  the  engineers  belonging  to  her  were  in 
the  engine-room  with  Mr.  Webster.  I cannot  mention  any  of  them  particularly. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  the  fighting  in  fire  and  engine  rooms  after  you  had  started  ahead?  If  so, 
how  long? 

Answer.  It  was  after  we  started  ahead.  I can’t  exactly  say  how  long  after.  I should  say  about  three 
quarters  of  an  hour. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  O’Neill  there  when  fighting  was  going  on?  How  long  had  it  been  going 
on  before  Mr.  Webster  ordered  all  the  men  but  Murphy  on  deck? 

Answer.  Yes,  O’Neill  was  there  rvhen  fighting  was  going  on.  It  hadn’t  been  going  on  long  before  Mr. 
Webster  ordered  all  the  men  but  Murphy  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Before  Mr.  Webster  ordered  the  men  on  deck,  what  efforts,  if  any,  had  you 
made  to  stop  the  fighting,  and  what  reports  had  you  made  to  him,  if  any? 

Answer.  I told  the  men  to  knock  off  fighting,  and  they  didn’t  seem  to  pay  any  attention  to  me,  and  I told 
them  if  they  did  not  do  so  I would  shoot  them,  and  that  quieted  them  for  the  time.  It  was  immediately  after 
that  I told  Mr.  Webster  about  it,  and  he  sent  them  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  time  did  you  come  to  anchor  off  Wilmingtou? 


23 


Answer.  I can’t  say  what  time  it  was;  as  near  as  I can  tell,  I should  think  it  was  between  twelve  and 
one  o’clock. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  were  on  duty  in  the  fire-room  when  you  came  to  anchor  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  There  were  three  of  the  Nicholas’s  men:  I think  Murphy  was  one;  the  other  two  I don’t 
recognize.  I don’t  know  their  names.  I would  know  them  if  I were  to  see  them. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  O’Neill  came  down  the  second  time,  did  you  see  how  he  came  ? If  so,  in 
what  way? 

Answer.  He  came  down  the  fire-room  ladder ; there  was  but  one  ladder  to  the  fire-room,  and  that  was 
forward.  There  was  another  ladder  to  the  engine-room,  and  that  was  forward  of  the  engine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  gave  orders  for  none  of  the  men  to  go  into  the  fore  hold,  who 
were  present? 

Answer.  I can’t  say  how  many  of  them  were  in  the  fire-room.  I guess  there  were  three.  Murphy  and 
O’Neill,  and  a coal-passer  that  was  there.  I don’t  know  his  name. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  were  you  when  you  told  O’Neill  to  get  a lamp;  where  was  he,  and 
which  way  did  he  go  ? 

Answer.  I was  in  the  engine-room  standing  in  the  passage-way  between  the  two  engines  on  the  lower 
platform,  about  midway  between  the  fire-room  and  the  fore  hold.  O’Neill  was  standing  in  the  alley-way  in 
the  archway  through  the  coal-bunkers,  between  the  engine-room  and  the  fire-room.  He  passed  me  and  went 
forward  when  he  went  to  get  the  lamp. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  where  he  went  to  ? Was  this  the  last  you  saw  of  him  till  he 
was  shot? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  passed  into  the  fore  hold.  I did  not  see  him  pass  into  the  fore  hold.  I did  not  see 
him  enter  there.  I supposed  he  went  into  the  fore  hold.  After  he  passed  me  I went  to  the  fire-room,  where 
I got  the  lamp  myself ; this  was  the  last  I saw  of  O’Neill  till  he  was  shot. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  left  Mr  Everson  in  the  fore  hold,  how  far  advanced  was  he  ? 

Answer.  He  made  up  to  where  the  powder  was. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Why  did  you  tell  Mr.  Everson  he  ought  not  to  have  shot  0’Ne:ll  ? 

Answer.  Because  the  man  was  working  at  the  time;  these  were  my  only  reasons  for  telling  him  so. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  quite  positive  O’Neill  was  on  duty  at  the  time  he  was  shot? 

Ansicer.  I am  positive  that  he  was  on  duty  before.  I couldn’t  say  he  was  in  there  on  duty. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  before  the  shooting  was  he  on  duty? 

Answer.  He  was  on  duty  up  to  the  time  of  the  shooting.  There  was  no  work  going  on  at  the  time ; the 
fires  were  all  banked. 

Question  by  the  accused.  If  it  was  not  his  watch  on,  had  he  any  business  below? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  if  it  wasn’t  his  watch,  I don’t  know  when  his  watch  was.  He  did  not  leave  below 
after  he  came  down  the  second  time  and  told  me  he  had  engaged  to  work,  till  after  he  was  shot. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  you  say  you  could  not  say  O’Neill  was  on  duty  in  the  fore  hold,  you 
mean  he  had  no  business  in  there — that  his  duty  was  not  there — do  you  not  ? 

The  judge  advocate  objects  to  the  question,  and  the  court  decides  that  the  question  cannot  be  put. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  you  cannot  say  O’Neill  was  on  duty  in  the 
fore  hold? 

Answer.  Well,  his  duty  might  lead  him  in  there.  He  might  go  in  there  to  look  for  the  lamp  when  I spnt 
him.  I mean  there  was  no  duty  for  him  to  do  there. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Had  you  seen  Mr.  Everson  drinking  spirits  on  the  day  of  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  You  have  said  Mr.  Everson  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  the  time  of 
the  shooting.  How  do  you  know  he  was? 

Answer.  From  his  appearance  and  talk. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  did  he  appear,  and  what  did  he  say? 

Answer.  He  appeared  to  me  intoxicated.  His  appearance  was  unusual  to  what  it  usually  was.  I’d  been 
with  him  on  board  the  vessel,  the  Victoria,  all  the  time.  He  said  nothing  out  of  the  way,  but  his  voice  and 
talk  sounded  different  from  what  it  usually  did.  He  talked  thick. 

Question  by  the  accused.  In  what  respect  was  his  appearance  unusual? 


24 


Ansiuer.  I cannot  exactly  explain,  sir;  it  was  the  appearance  of  a man  intoxicated. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Does  he  look  as  if  intoxicated  now? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Explain  if  you  can,  more  fully,  in  what  respect  his  appearance  on  that  day 
differed  from  his  appearance  now  ? 

Answer.  Well,  his  face  was  redder  than  what  it  is  now,  and  coming  down  he  staggered  slightly  going 
into  the  fore  hold. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  his  condition  such  as  to  render  it  unsafe  for  him  to  go  where  powder 

was  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  times  before  he  went  down  into  the  fore  hold  had  you  seen  him 
after  the  boarding  of  the  Nicholas,  and  in  what  respect  did  his  appearance  differ  at  those  times  from  it  when 
he  was  in  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  I only  seen  him  before  when  I reported  the  powder  to  him.  I did  not  take  so  much  notice  of 
him  as  I did  down  below  when  I was  alongside  speaking  to  him.  When  I reported  the  powder  then, 
he  made  no  answer,  only  followed,  that  I can  recollect. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  went  down  stairs  first,  you  or  he? 

Answer.  I went  down  first. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  and  he  went  down,  was  the  ladder  removed  from  in  front  of 
the  entrance  to  the  fore  hold? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; it  was  there. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Look  at  the  drawing  marked  B.  S.  C.  P.,  and  state  if  it  is  a correct  drawing 
of  the  portion  of  the  Nicholas  it  purports  to  represent. 

Answer.  The  bulkhead  in  the  fore  hold  should  be  forward  of  the  foremast,  and  there  should  be  another 
hatch  forward  of  the  foremast,  and  then  there  was  the  forecastle  scuttle  besides.  The  drawing  represents 
correctly  the  boilers  and  engines,  the  coal-bunkers,  and  entrance  to  the  fore  hold. 

The  paper  marked  “B.  S.  0.  P.”  is  now  put  in  evidence  by  the  accused,  and  is  annexed  hereunto. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Could  you  get  into  the  fore  hold  without  removing  the  ladder  shown  on  the 
drawing  and  marked  No.  1? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; there  was  plenty  of  space  on  each  side  of  it  to  get  into  the  fore  hold. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  that  the  ladder  down  which  you  and  Mr.  Everson  went? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  You  have  already  stated  that  it  was  after  you  had  arrived  off  Wilmington 
when  O’Neill  came  down  and  said  he  had  made  arrangements  to  work  home;  are  you  sure  of  this? 

Answer.  I am  not  sure  as  to  her  being  there  ; I think  it  was  before  we  came  to  anchor.  O’Neill  was 
one  who  banked  up  the  fires.  The  engines  were  stopped  at  the  time  he  came  down.  I didn't  know  where 
we  were.  I could  not  say  whether  the  Nicholas  was  up  with  the  fleet  at  the  time.  I was  below. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  after  the  engines  were  stopped,  after  which  you  have  stated  O’Neill 
came  down,  was  it  before  you  anchored?  Were  the  engines  started  after  that  time? 

Answer.  I couldn’t  say  how  long  after  the  engines  were  stopped  that  it  was  before  we  anchored.  I onlv 
judged  from  the  fact  that  the  engines  were  stopped  and  the  fires  were  banked  that  we  were  at  anchor.  The 
engines  were  not  started  after  that,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  judge  advocate  proceeds  to  re-examine  : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  sent  O’Neill  to  look  for  a lamp  did  you  send  him  to  anv 
particular  place? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  or  not  as  much  business  to  go  into  the  fore  hold  to  look  for  one 
as  into  any  other  place  below  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; he  had  as  much  business  to  go  there  to  look  for  one  as  into  any  other  place  below. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  ordered  him  up  from  below  before  the  shooting? 

Answer.  I ordered  all  of  them  on  deck  when  they  were  fighting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  this  after  O’Neill  came  down  the  second  time? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; I didn’t  order  him  on  deck  after  he  came  down  the  second  time  till  after  he  was  shot. 

I ordered  him  on  deck  after  he  was  shot,  telling  him  the  surgeon  would  attend  to  him. 


25 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  be  or  not  as  much  right  to  remain  below  after  the  fires  were 
banked,  as  to  go  on  deck,  or  into  any  other  part  of  the  vessel  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; he  had  as  much  right  to  remain  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  is  the  temper  of  the  accused;  cool  and  deliberate,  or  quick  and 
hasty? 

Answer.  Cool,  sir;  very  cool. 

The  judge  advocate  here  read  to  the  witness  the  charges  and  specifications  against  the  accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  stated  everything  within  your  knowledge  and  recollection, 
fully  and  in  detail,  in  relation  to  the  charges  and  specifications  preferred  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  against  the  accused,  just  read  to  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Friday,  September  twenty-third,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

SEVENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Friday,  September  23,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court,  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  with  his  counsel,  was  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  re-examination  of  the  witness,  Thomas  Gernon,  is  now  resumed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  door  in  the  bulkhead,  between  the  engine-room  and  the  fore  hold 
closed  after  the  powder  was  discovered,  and  while  the  vessel  was  coming  north? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; for  we  had  occasion  to  take  coal  out  of  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  the  bunkers  in  the  fire-room  were  filled  at  Beaufort,  did  you 
continue  using  the  coal  out  of  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  we  used  some  out  of  it — some  of  the  English  coal  that  was  on  the  between-decks ; 
we  threw  it  down  there  and  used  some  of  it;  we  had  occasion  to  do  so  for  to  get  steam. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  except  O’Neill,  sent  north 
in  her  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; there  was  some  of  the  men  came  north. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  did  the  coal-passer,  who  was  down  below  at  the  time  of  the 
shooting,  come  down  ? 

Answer.  I cannot  say  what  time  he  came  down. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  gone  up  on  deck  with  the  others,  when  the  men  were  ordered 
up  by  Mr.  Webster? 

Answer.  I think  he  did,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  Mr.  Everson  sent  on  board  the  Nicholas  as  prize-master? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  there  any  drinking  or  carousing  on  board  the  Nicholas  after  you  came  on 
board?  If  so,  by  whom? 

Ansicer.  I cannot  say,  sir;  there  was  none  down  below. 

Question  by  the  Court.  At  the  moment  of  hearing  Mr.  Everson’s  voice  saying  “Clear  out,”  did  you  hear 
the  report  of  the  pistol,  or  was  it  some  time  after ; and  if  after,  how  long  ? 

Answer.  It  was  immediately  after  hearing  Mr.  Everson’s  voice  that  I heard  the  report  of  the  pistol ; 
would  not  say  it  would  be  a minute ; it  was  not  a minute. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Hid  you  at  any  time  see  O’Neill  handling  powder  down  below,  or  did  you  see 
him  show  any  disposition  to  meddle  with  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  You  have  testified  that  O’Neill  was  drunk;  how  much  time  elapsed  from  the 
time  you  saw  him  drunk  until  you  heard  the  shot  fired? 

Answer.  It  might  be  two  or  three  hours,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

4 


26 


Question  by  the  Court.  You  say  that  not  a minute  elapsed  from  the  moment  you  heard  the  voice  of  the 
accused  saying  “Clear  out,”  until  the  shot  was  fired;  what  portion  of  a minute  elapsed;  how  m my  seconds 
elapsed  ? 

Answer.  I could  not  exactly  say.  It  might  be  a minute,  or  it  might  be  less.  There  was  no  apparent 
lapse  of  time.  As  far  as  I could  judge,  the  shot  was  fired  immediately  on  the  word. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Do  you  know  if  there  was  any  liquor  which  the  men  could  get  at,  either  in  the 
fire-room,  engine-room,  or  near  the  fore  hold! 

Answer.  No,  sir;  not  in  the  fore  hold,  that  I know  of.  I found  half  a bottle  of  liquor  myself  in  the 
engine-room.  There  Avas  none  in  the  fire-room,  that  I saw.  I think  I saw  another  empty  bottle.  That  was 
all  the  sign  of  liquor  that  I seen  in  the  fire-room. 

The  court  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  accused  proceeds  to  re-cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  if  there  were  arms  on  board  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her 
capture  ? If  so,  what  kind  and  what  quantity  1 

Answer.  I do  not  knorv  that  she  had  any,  only  what  the  men  said — that  she  had  arms  on  board  of  her  in 
cases  in  the  hold. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  use  coals  from  the  fore  hold  on  the  passage  from  Little  river  to  off 
Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  much? 

Answer.  I could  not  exactly  say  how  much.  There  were  several  barrows.  They  used  to  wheel  it  out 
in  barrows. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Why  did  you  use  coal  from  the  fore  hold,  Avhen  there  Avas  coal  in  the  bunkers 
in  the  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  Avkat  reason  they  had  for  it. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  quite  positive  any  was  used  from  the  fore  hold? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; certain. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Everson  had  been  below,  either  in  fire  or  engine- 
room,  until  the  time  when  he  went  down  with  you  to  examine  the  powder  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  know,  sir;  I did  not  see  him  down  there  before  that. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  if  any,  came  in  her  to  New  York,  and 
in  what  capacity  ? 

Answer.  Some  of  the  Nicholas’s  crew  came  in  her  to  New  York,  I think;  some  of  them  Avere  working. 
There  were  two  men  in  the  galley;  one  acted  as  steward,  carpenter,  and  boatsAvain;  the  captain  and  chief 
mate.  I don’t  know  in  what  capacity  they  came ; they  might  have  been  as  prisoners ; they  all  had  the 
liberty  of  the  ship ; the  two  men  A\rho  Avere  in  the  galleys  were  working,  and  the  steward.  I did  not  see  the 
others  working. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  ever  hear  from  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  of  a plan 
to  recapture  the  ship  after  she  had  recoaled  ? 

Ansiver.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  On  the  day  of  the  capture,  had  you  taken  any  spirits  ? If  so,  how  often  and 
at  Avliat  time  ? 

Answer.  I took  none,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  From  the  time  you  left  Mr.  Everson  in  the  fore  hold  until  you  got  midway  in 
the  passage  of  the  engine-room,  after  lighting  the  lamp  at  the  furnace,  Avas  there  or  not  time  for  him  to  have 
called  out  to  O’Neill  more  than  once  before  you  heard  the  report  of  the  pistol,  and  his  voice  ? and  if  so,  could 
you  or  not  have  heard  him  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ; he  had  time  to  call  out  more  than  once.  I was  in  the  fire-room  when  I heard  him  call 
out.  I was  in  the  act  of  lighting  the  lamp.  I could  have  heard  him. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  far  was  it  from  where  you  were  lighting  the  lamp  to  the  entrance  to  the 
fore  hole,  and  how  far  [from]  the  same  place  to  the  tiers  of  powder  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  about  thirty  feet,  I should  think,  to  the  bulkhead — that  is,  to  the  entrance  from 
where  I was  standing,  lighting  the  lamp.  It  was  about  forty  feet  from  [Avhere]  I Avas  standing  lighting  the 
lamp  to  the  tiers  of  powder — may  be  more. 


27 


Question  by  the  accused.  Could  you  have  heard  Mr.  Everson  that  distance  if  he  spoke  in  a moderate 
tone  of  voice  ? Was  there  any  noise  below  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I could  not  have  heard  Mr.  Everson  that  distance  if  he  spoke  in  a moderate  tone 
of  voice.  There  was  no  noise  below  at  the  time. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  hear  him  speak  more  than  once  ? Are  you  positive  ? 

Answer.  I only  heard  his  voice  once ; I am  positive  about  this. 

Question  by  the  accused.  State,  as  near  as  you  can,  the  exact  words  you  heard. 

Answer.  As  near  as  I can  think,  the  words  sounded  to  me  as  if  he  said,  “ Clear  out !”  or,  “ Clear  out  of 
that !”  I could  not  swear  to  the  exact  words.  It  sounded  to  me  as  if  them  was  the  words. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  put  by  way  of  re- cross-examination,  the  following  question 
is  put  by  the  Court : 

Question  by  the  Court.  When  did  it  first  occur  to  you,  the  day  of  the  capture,  that  Mr.  Everson  was  under 
the  influence  of  liquor? 

Answer.  When  he  came  in  the  engine-room. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  Thomas  Gernon,  as  above  recorded,  is  now  read  over  to  him,  when  he 
states  that  he  misunderstood  the  question  on  page  S6  of  the  record,  in  reference  to  his  seeing  any  of  the 
officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  on  deck  at  the  time  he  went  up  to  report  about  the  powder ; that  he  under- 
stood the  question  to  refer  to  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Victoria ; that  he  did  not  see  any  of  the  officers  of 
the  Nicholas  on  the  deck  when  he  went  up  ; the  three  officers  he  saw  were  the  officers  of  the  Victoria;  and 
that  he  could  not  distinguish  the  officers  of  the  Nicholas  from  her  crew  ; and  that  the  testimony  as  above 
recorded  is,  with  this  correction,  approved  by  him  as  correct. 

The  witness  now  retired. 

The  judge  advocate  now  calls 

Michael  Murphij,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn  by  the  president  of  the  court,  in  the  presence  of  the 
accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories  testified  as  follows  : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  is  your  name,  age,  residence,  and  occupation  ? 

Answer.  My  name  is  Michael  Murphy  ; my  age  is  twenty-three.  I reside  in  Liverpool  ; my  occupation 
is  fireman. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  on  board  the  steamer  Nicholas  I,  when  she  was  captured,  in 
March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three  ? If  aye,  in  what  capacity  ? 

Answer.  I was  on  boaid  of  her  as  a fireman. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  State  all  your  knowledge  in  reference  to  the  shooting  of  James  O’Neill 
on  board  the  steamer  Nicholas  I. 

Answer.  On  Saturday,  the  twenty-first  of  March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  we  were  captured 
about  half  past  nine  or  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning,  by  the  Victoria.  We  were  boarded  in  about  half  an 
hour’s  time  afterwards.  The  people  on  board  the  ship  was  in  confusion  at  the  time.  When  the  lieutenant 
boarded  us  he  asked  for  the  captain  of  the  ship.  By  the  lieutenant  I mean  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused.  He 
told  the  captain  to  get  in  the  boat.  We  were  blowing  off  steam  at  the  time.  O’Neill  asked  me  would  I 
volunteer  to  work  the  ship  up  to  Wilmington  ? I told  him  I would.  The  engineer  asked  me  afterwards 
would  I volunteer  to  work  her  up  to  Wilmington — the  engineer  of  the  Victoria.  I heard  his  name  was 
Webster;  he  told  me  he  would  pay  me  for  it.  I went  down  below  on  watch,  as  I thought,  about  twelve 
o’clock.  I am  going  ahead  too  far.  There  were  two  men  fighting  below  in  the  forecastle  before  this.  I tried  to 
separate  them  ; they  were  two  of  the  firemen  of  the  Nicholas.  I told  them  that  it  was  no  time  to  fight  there  ; 
so  a little  time  afterwards  the  same  two  came  on  deck,  and  fell  to  again  fighting.  Michael  Keogh  and 
Robert  Farrell  were  their  names.  The  leading  stoker  of  the  Victoria,  Gernon,  who  is  in  the  other  room  as  a 
witness,  said  to  them  that  if  they  would  not  give  over  fighting,  he  would  shoot  them.  I told  him  that  I 
would  get  them  away.  I took  Robert  Farrell  forward.  Some  of  the  men  told  me  that  the  other  man 
went  aft — Michael  Keogh.  A little  time  before  we  were  boarded,  some  of  the  chaps  got  down  below  into 
the  hold  and  began  to  throw  up  some  shoes  belonging  to  the  cargo,  and  after  that  there  was  some  grog  left  on 
the  deck.  Some  of  them  took  a little  of  it — I can’t  say  how  much.  Our  engineers  were  rather  the  worse 
of  grog,  if  any.  During  the  time  I was  on  watch  there  were  several  of  the  men  going  down  in  the 
stoke-hold,  and  through  the  engine-room.  I told  the  first-class  fireman,  Gernon,  that  there  was  powder  right 
forward  in  the  ship’s  hold.  He  told  me  he  would  put  a stop  to  this.  A little  after  this  I saw  a sentry  on  the 


28 


stoke-hole  grating,  and  another  at  the  engine-room  door  on  deck.  We  came  up  to  Wilmington,  as  near  as  I 
can  recollect,  about  half  past  two.  Got  orders,  I can’t  say  from  whom,  to  shove  the  fires  back.  Gernon  told 
me  he  would  take  a look  and  see  where  the  powder  was  in  the  ship’s  hold.  I went  forward  in  the  bunker 
hold,  and  had  a sit  down  under  the  ventilator  to  cool  myself  on  a barrow  there  was  there.  I was  talking  to 
O’Neill  about  us  going  to  New  York  in  the  Nicholas.  Gernon  asked  O’Neill  for  something — I can’t  say 
what  it  was.  O’Neill  went  on  deck.  While  he  was  on  deck  I stood  between  the  two  engines.  While  I was 
there  I saw  the  lieutenant,  Everson,  passing  through  into  the  hold.  O’Neill  passed  me  by,  and  while  he 
passed  me  he  asked  me  where  the  leading  stoker  or  first-class  fireman  was.  I told  him  that  he  was  inside  the 
bunkers — the  fore  hold,  or  bunker  hold,  and  the  lieutenant  was  in  there  too.  He  had  to  stoop  to  enter  it.  I 
looked  after  him  all  the  time.  I heard  the  pistol  shot  go  off.  I saw  the  lieutenant,  Everson,  put  the  pistol 
into  his  sheath.  O’Neill  came  to  me  with  his  hands  on  his  thigh,  and  told  me  he  was  shot.  I said  “ No  ; he 
only  tried  to  frighten  you.”  I looked  down  at  his  shoe  and  looked  at  his  ankle.  He  had  no  strings  in  his 
shoes,  and  no  stockings  on.  I saw  the  blood  coming  down  very  slow,  and  I told  him  to  go  to  the  stoke-hole 
ladder  and  get  up.  I kept  my  hand  on  him  all  the  time  and  was  forcing  him  up  the  ladder,  and  the  people 
atop  told  him  to  stop  below.  He  was  making  the  third  attempt  to  get  up  on  the  first  step,  when  he  fell  into 
my  arms.  I laid  him  down  in  the  stoke-hole,  and  the  first  man  I met  was  the  leading  stoker,  Gernon.  I told 
him  O’Neill  was  shot,  and  he  said  “ I know  that.”  I told  him  to  do  all  he  could  for  him,  and  he  said  he  was 
afraid  he  was  shot  in  the  groin.  Gernon  cut  O’Neill’s  trowsers  down,  and  the  lieutenant,  Everson,  came 
through  the  passage,  and  he  asked  Gernon  “ Who  done  that — who  shot  him'?”  Gemon  said  “ You  shot  this 
man.”  During  the  time  Germon  was  tying  up  the  wounds,  the  doctor  came  down — the  doctor  of  the  Victoria, 
and  the  chief  engineer,  Mr.  Webster,  and  the  pilot  of  the  ship.  Some  called  him  the  mate  of  the  ship,  and 
some  called  him  the  pilot.  I saw  Gernon  pull  a handkerchief  from  somebody’s  neck — some  of  those  below. 
He  tied  the  wound  at  each  end  to  stop  the  blood;  he  worked  it  very  tight  with  something — I can’t  say  what 
it  was.  The  engineer,  Mr.  Webster,  gave  me  a couple  of  rough  shoves,  and  asked  me  what  I was  doing 
there  ? I told  him  I was  on  duty  there  till  four  o’clock.  So  there  was  a bed  brought  down,  O’Neill’s  bed- 
O’Neill  was  put  on  it.  They  wanted  to  haul  him  up  through  the  stoke-hole.  Some  wanted  him  to  go  up 
through  the  engine-room  ; they  said  it  would  be  the  easiest.  He  was  put  on  Gernon’s  back,  and  I kept 
behind  him  while  he  was  going  up  the  ladder  through  the  engine-room  on  to  the  deck.  He  was  laid  at  the 
main  gangway,  on  the  port  side.  I saw  no  more  of  O’Neill  till  I saw  him  on  board  of  the  Victoria.  I think 
it  was  Sunday,  the  next  day.  I saw  two  of  the  Victoria’s  sailors  the  worse  for  liquor  that  evening — Saturday 
evening,  about  between  four  and  five  o’clock,  as  near  as  1 could  tell.  About  five  o’clock  all  hands  were  called 
aft  on  to  the  quarter  deck.  The  most  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  had  ■wearing  apparel  which  they  had  taken 
out  of  the  hold.  The  lieutenant,  Everson,  ordered  all  hands  to  strip — those  who  had  any  clothes  belonging 
to  the  ship  to  take  them  otf.  That  was  done,  and  the  captain  of  the  Victoria  came  aboard.  I could  not  say 
whether  he  came  aboard  before  or  after  the  clothing  was  taken  from  the  men.  We  were  all  in  rotation  about 
five  o’clock  or  a little  after  five.  I mean  by  being  in  rotation,  we  were  standing  one  right  next  the  other 
along  the  starboard  bulwark.  The  captain  of  the  Victoria  read  out  of  a paper,  which  I don’t  know  anything 
about  now.  When  he  had  finished  reading  out  of  the  paper,  he  said,  “Hang  them,”  or  “ Shoot  them.”  We 
might  be  there  standing  an  hour.  W e were  sent  forward  to  the  forecastle.  W e were  turned  into  our  beds 
about  nine  o’clock.  The  next  evening  we  were  sent  aboard  the  Victoria.  After  we  had  been  aboard  about 
an  hour,  some  of  us,  of  whom  I was  one,  were  sent  aboard  the  Sacramento.  We  were  aboard  of  her  about 
nine  or  ten  days.  We  were  then  sent  aboard  the  Massachusetts,  and  left  that  day  for  Beaufort,  North  Caro- 
lina; and  from  thence  we  went  to  Hampton  Roads,  and  anchored  there  for  the  night,  and  then  went  in  her  to 
Philadelphia,  and  there  we  were  discharged.  I saw  O’Neill  on  board  the  Massachusetts.  He  came  aboard  I 
think  it  was  in  Beaufort ; he  went  ashore  in  Hampton  Roads. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  did  you  ship  on  board  tbe  Nicholas,  and  where  did  you  ship 

for? 

Answer.  I shipped  at  Liverpool  for  St.  Thomas,  in  the  West  Indies. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  go  to  St.  Thomas ; and  where  did  you  go  to  from  thence? 

Answer.  We  went  to  St.  Thomas,  and  from  St.  Thomas  to  Nassau. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  did  you  know  there  was  powder  on  board  the  Nicholas? 

Answer.  We  got  powder  in  the  river  Mersey  ; I saw  it  coming  aboard. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  powder  was  there  ? 


29 


Answer.  From  fifteen  to  seventeen  tons,  I heard  the  sailors  say. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  was  it  packed  ? 

Answer.  It  was  packed  in  kegs. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  and  how  was  it  stowed  on  board  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  It  was  stowed  forward  in  the  ship,  in  the  forward  hold,  leaving  Liverpool. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  it  changed  from  the  forward  hold  before  the  capture,  and  how? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  part  of  it  put  in  the  after  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When' and  why  was  this  change  made  ? 

Answer.  I cannot  say.  It  was  made  about  three  or  four  days  before  we  left  Nassau.  I can’t  say  why 
it  was  made. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  powder  was  in  the  forward  hold  at  the  time  of  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  Well,  as  near  as  I could  say,  it  was  about  one  half  of  it.  It  was  divided  into  half one  half 

aft,  and  the  other  half  forward. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  and  where  was  it  stowed  in  the  forward  hold  at  the  time  of  the 
capture  ? 

Answer.  It  was — it  might  be — I can’t  say  whether  it  was  up  against  the  bulkhead — the  bulkhead  of  the 
forecastle,  right  under  the  forward  hatch.  I was  one  of  the  hands  that  passed  it  down.  I cannot  say  whether 
there  was  anything  that  jammed  it  up  or  not.  It  was  stowed  one  on  top  of  the  other,  about  three  high,  as 
near  as  I could  go. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  in  the  Mersey  when  you  helped  pass  the  powder  down? 
Answer.  I did  not  pass  it  down  in  the  Mersey.  I passed  it  down  about  six  miles  from  Nassau.  We 
were  lying  at  anchor  at  the  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  powder  in  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her  capture,  except 
what  was  in  the  fore  hold,  and  what  was  in  the  after  hold? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts  were  you  on  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her  capture  ? 
Answer.  I was  aft  most  of  the  time,  on  deck. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Whereabouts  were  you  at  the  time  she  was  boarded? 

Answer.  I was  in  the  port  gangway. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  it  your  watch  below  at  the  time  of  the  capture? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  firemen  were  there  on  board  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her 
capture,  and  how  many  were  in  each  watch  ? 

Answer.  There  were  six  firemen,  two  in  each  watch,  and  a coal-passer;  we  had  three  watches. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  was  your  mate  in  your  watch? 

Answer.  O’Neill. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  O’Neill  at  the  time  of  the  capture? 

Answer.  I cannot  say  where  he  was;  the  most  of  the  crew  were  aft.  I could  not  say  whether  O’Neill 
was  below  or  not.  The  most  of  the  hands  were  aft  at  that  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  the  capture  did  O’Neill  come  to  you  and  ask  you  if  you 
would  volunteer  to  work  the  ship  up  to  Wilmington? 

Answer.  It  might  be  half  or  three  quarters  of  an  hour  after  the  capture. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  the  Nicholas  started  ahead  at  that  time  on  her  way  to  Wilmington  f 
Answer.  No,  sir,  I don’t  think  she  had.  I can’t  say  whether  she  was  going  ahead  or  not. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  when  O’Neill  made  this  proposition  to  you? 

Answer.  I was  between  the  two  paddle-boxes  alongside  the  engine-room  companion-way. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  any  one  present,  and  who  ? 

Answer.  I was  talking  to  some  of  the  Victoria’s  crew  at  the  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  this  did  you  and  O’Neill  go  below? 

Answer.  It  might  be  an  hour  or  so. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  been  below  after  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas  before  you  and 
O’Neill  went  down  after  he  had  made  this  proposition  to  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I had  not  been  down  till  me  and  him  going  down  together. 


30 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  it  before  or  after  you  saw  tbe  two  men  fighting  on  deck  that  you 
and  O’Neill  went  down  together? 

Answer.  It  was  before. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  and  O’Neill  went  down  together,  who  were  in  the  engine- 
room  and  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  I saw  some  of  the  Victoria’s  crew,  and  I saw  the  leading  stoker  there.  I saw  the  engineer  of 
the  Victoria,  and  our  own  engineers — the  engineers  of  the  Nicholas.  I seen  the  officers  of  the  Victoria,  the 
lieutenant,  down  there  several  times,  but  I could  not  say  I seen  him  down  there  that  time.  I can’t  say  I saw 
any  one  else  down  there.  Our  coal-passer  was  down  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  did  you  and  O’Neill  stay  below? 

Answer.  We  might  be  there  for  about  two  hours  before  he  was  shot. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  been  up  on  deck  in  the  mean  time? 

Answer.  I could  not  say,  sir,  whether  he  had  been  on  deck;  I had  been  on  deck. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Saturday,  September  24,  1864,  at  half  past  ten  in 
the  morning. 

EIGHTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Saturday , September  24,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  was  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  examination  of  the  witness,  Michael  Murphy,  is  now  resumed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  people  of  the  ship  being  in  confusion  at  the 
time  she  was  boarded,  as  you  stated  yesterday? 

Answer.  They  were  rather  afraid  of  the  United  States  crew;  they  were  afraid  of  being  put  in  prison 
of  getting  punishment. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  O’Neill  had  asked  you  to  volunteer  to  work  the  ship 
did  Mr.  Webster  ask  you  to  volunteer,  and  say  he  would  pay  yon? 

Answer.  O’Neill  asked  me  first.  It  might  be  five  minutes  after  that  Mr.  Webster  asked  me. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  O’Neill  present  when  Mr.  Webster  asked  you? 

Answer.  I cannot  say.  I don’t  recollect. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  any  one  present,  and  who? 

Answer.  The  Victoria’s  crew  was  present,  a couple  of  them ; there  might  be  some  of  our  crew,  but  I 
can’t  say  which  of  them  was  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  when  Mr.  Webster  asked  you  to  volunteer? 

Answer.  I was  close  at  the  engine-room  companion. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  been  working  at  all  below  after  the  capture,  and  before  Mr. 
Webster  asked  you  to  volunteer? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  all  the  time  from  the  capture  till  Mr.  Webster  asked 
you  to  volunteer,  on  deck  or  below  ? 

Answer.  I was  on  deck,  sir. 

Question.  How  soon  after  Mr.  Webster  asked  you  to  volunteer  did  you  go  below? 

Answer.  It  might  be  half  an  hour,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  ordered  you  to  go  below? 

Answer.  Well,  I can’t  say  who  ordered  me.  I acquainted  our  own  engineers  before  I would  go  down 
below. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  did  you  come  on  deck  for  after  you  had  once  gone  down  ? 

Answer.  I came  to  look  round  to  see  if  I knew  any  of  the  people  belonging  to  the  Victoria. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  Nicholas  under  way  at  the  time  Mr.  Webster  asked  you  to 
volunteer? 


31 


Answer.  No,  sir,  I don’t  think  she  was.  She  had  not  started  from  Little  river. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  the  Nicholas  when  you  came  up  on  deck  to  look  round? 
Answer.  She  was  close  to  the  place  where  we  were  captured. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  she  under  way  at  this  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  did  you  stay  on  deck  ? 

Answer.  About  ten  minutes. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  you  went  down  did  you  come  on  deck  again  before  the  shooting? 
Answer.  I tired  the  ship  when  I went  down,  sir ; I fired  the  four  tires.  I came  on  deck  after  the  tiring 
of  the  fires  about  twice  before  the  shooting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  there  sentries  at  any  of  the  hatchways  ? 

Answer.  Not  this  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  did  you  first  see  a sentry  at  any  of  the  hatchways  ? 

Answer.  After  my  telling  the  first-class  fireman,  Gernon,  about  what  was  in  the  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  go  up  on  deck  again  after  you  had  told  him  this,  before  the 
shooting  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I had  not  been  on  deck  until  O’Neill  was  carried  up. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  one  come  down  below  after  you  saw  the  sentry  at  the  hatchway? 
Answer.  No,  sir;  there  was  no  one  allowed  below  except  the  officers  of  the  Victoria.  They  were  up  and 
down. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  or  hear  Mr.  Webster  order  any  of  the  Nicholas’s  crew  up 
out  of  the  fire-room  or  engine-room  at  any  time  on  the  day  of  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I never  did. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  or  hear  any  quarrelling  or  fighting  among  the  men  of  the 
Nicholas  in  the  fire-room  or  engine-room  at  any  time  on  the  day  of  her  capture  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

.Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  or  hear  the  first-class  stoker,  Gernon,  threaten  to  shoot  any 
of  the  men  of  the  Nicholas,  in  the  fire-room  or  engine-room  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  were  the  people  above  that  told  O’Neill  to  stop  below,  at  the  time 
he  tried  to  get  up  the  ladder  after  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  Well,  there  was  a sentry  there  and  some  of  the  Nicholas’s  crew,  and  some  of  the  Victoria’s  crew, 
I could  not  say  who  they  were. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  do  you  know  O’Neill  went  on  deck  when  the  first-class  stoker, 
Gernon,  asked  him  for  something  ? 

Answer.  I saw  him  go  up  the  ladder. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Which  ladder  ? 

Answer.  The  stoke-hole  ladder. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  when  you  saw  him  go  up  ? 

Answer.  I was  between  the  two  engines  in  the  passage. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Gould  you  see  the  stoke-hole  hatchway  from  where  you  stood  ? 

Ansiver.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  standing  at  the  time  you  heard  the  report  of  the  pistol? 
Answer.  I was  standing  in  the  passage  in  the  engine-room  between  the  two  engines. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  the  first-class  stoker,  Gernon,  at  this  time  ? 

Answer.  I think  he  was  in  the  hunker,  sir — the  bunker-hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  any  light  in  the  bunker-hold  at  this  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I could  not  say  I saw  a light. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  you  when  Gernon  came  down  after  being  up  to  report  about 
the  powder? 

Answer.  I cannot  say,  sir,  where  I was ; I cannot  recollect. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Which  way  did  he  come  down  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know,  sir. 


32 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  O’Neill  at  this  time  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  knorv,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  one  come  down  with  Gernon  ? 

Answer.  1 can’t  say ; I did  not  see  any  one  come  down ; I did  not  see  Gernon  himself  come  down. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  did  you  first  see  Gernon  after  he  came  down  ? 

Answer.  I saw  him;  he  came  down  to  me  and  asked  me  were  there  no  good  lamps  in  the  ship;  I was 
between  the  two  engines  at  this  time  in  the  passage. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  did  Gernon  do,  and  where  did  he  go  to  after  asking  you  about 
the  lamps  ? 

Answer.  I saw  him  enter  the  bunker  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  in  there  then  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I don’t  think  he  was  in  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  did  you  first  see  him  go  in  there  ? 

Answer.  I cannot  say  whether  it  was  before  or  after  Gernon ; I saw  him  go  in. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  you  saw  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  go  into  the  bunker  hold,  did 
you  see  him  come  out  again  till  after  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  you  saw  Gernon,  the  first-class  stoker,  go  into  the  bunker  hold, 
did  you  see  him  come  out  again  until  after  the  shooting '! 

Answer.  No,  sir ; I did  not  see  him  come  out  till  after  the  shooting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  the  ventilator  you  have  spoken  of ; what  sort  of  a ventilator 
was  it  ? 

Answer.  It  was  a ventilator  that  was  there  for  the  use  of  cattle.  It  was  about  a foot  or  two  inside  after 
you  get  in  through  this  square. hole ; the  square  hole  through  which  you  enter  into  the  bunker  hold  through 
the  engine-room.  It  was  made  of  sheet-iron.  It  was  a round  pipe  running  down  to  the  between-decks.  It 
gave  air  to  the  lower  hold.  It  came  about  six  feet  and  a half  above  the  deck.  The  vessel  had  been  in  the 
cattle  trade  before  this  voyage,  and  had  had  several  ventilators  in  her,  and  this  was  the  only  one  that  was  left. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  been  any  voyage  in  the  Nicholas  before  the  one  on  which  she 
was  captured  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  bunker  hold  at  the  time  of  the  capture? 

Answer.  I can’t  exactly  say ; there  must  have  been  about  twenty  tons. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  was  it  stowed;  what  space  did  it  occupy  in  the  forward  hold  ? 

Answer.  It  was  in  bulk,  about  thirty  feet  in  length.  It  had  been  used  from  the  after  end  first,  and  took 
so.  There  was  two  hatches  forward  of  the  engines,  and  the  coal  might  be  under  the  after  fore  hatch. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  often  had  you  been  in  this  forward  hold  before  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  Well,  the  last  time  was  when  I was  last  on  watch;  we  would  go  in  there  to  cool  ourselves  when 
we  would  get  a chance  to  cool  ourselves  after  firing  ; to  the  coolest  part  of  the  ship. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  bunkers  in  the  fire-room  at  the  time 
of  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  think  there  was  any. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  before  the  capture  did  you  begin  to  use  coal  out  of  the  bunker 
hold  ? 

Answer.  We  were  using  coal  out  of  the  bunker  hold  all  the  time;  it  was  wheeled  out  by  the  coal-passers. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  or  was  not  the  coal  in  the  fire-room  bunkers  used  up  before  you 
began  to  use  the  coal  out  of  the  bunker  hold  ? 

Answer.  Well,  we  had  used  the  coal  in  the  fire-room  bunkers ; I think  it  was  all  used  before  we  began 
to  use  the  coal  out  of  the  fore  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  before  the  capture  was  the  coal  in  the  fire-room  bunkers  used  up  ? 

Ainstccr.  I don’t  know,  sir ; we  Were  using  the  coal  out  of  the  forward  hold  all  the  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  anything  to  separate  the  coal  from  the  powder  iu  the  forward 
hold  ?' 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; there  was  salt  there ; I cannot  say  exactly  whether  there  was  anything  else. 


33 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  the  accused,  Mr.  Everson,  at  any  time  after  the  capture 
of  the  Nicholas,  when  he  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I could  not  say  whether  he  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor.  But  he  appeared  to  be 
very  rough  after  being  aboard  an  hour  or  so. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  often  had  you  seen  him  below  that  day  after  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  I saw  him  several  times,  sir ; I could  not  say  how  many ; him  and  the  engineer. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  did  the  accused,  Mr.  Everson,  appear  at  those  times  when  you 
saw  him  below  ? 

Answer . Well,  he  appeared  to  be  very  careless  looking;  he  was  talking  from  one  to  another  of  the 
officers  and  our  engineers  ; I don’t  know  what  he  was  talking  about. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  he  appear  to  be  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  any  of  these 
times  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I thought  so  myself,  sir;  now  and  then  when  I would  look  at  him. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  hear  anything  said  by  the  accused,  Mr.  Everson,  or  by 
O’Neill  before  or  just  about  the  time  of  the  shooting. 

Answer.  No  ; all  I heard  was,  he  said  to  O’Neill  just  as  he  was  entering  the  hold,  “ what  do  you  want 
there,”  or  “what  are  you  doing  there,”  or  something  like  that.  ' T did  not  hear  O’Neill  speak  or  say  anything 
and  then  I heard  the  pistol  shot  go  oil'. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  you  heard  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  say  tins  to 
O’Neill  was  it  before  you  heard  the  pistol  go  off  ? 

Answer.  It  was  the  very  moment  he  said  it  that  I heard  the  pistol  go  off. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Could  you  see  either  of  them  at  the  time  of  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I saw  both. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  Mr.  Everson,  the  accused,  standing  when  he  fired  the 
pistol ? 

Answer.  He  was  standing  inside  of  this  hold,  just  close  to  the  entrance ; about  a couple  of  feet  from  the 
entrance  I should  suppose. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Which  way  was  he  facing? 

Answer.  His  face  was  to  the  starboard  side  ; more  a little  inclining  aft. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  his  pistol  in  his  hand  when  he  went  into  the  hold,  or  did  you 
see  him  draw  it  ? 

Answer.  I saw  the  pistol  after  him  shooting  ; 1 did  not  see  him  draw  it;  I could  not  say  whether  it  was 
in  his  hand  when  he  went  in  there. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  was  O’Neill  standing  at  the  time  he  was  shot? 

Answer.  He  was  just  entering;  just  inside  the  hold  ; I saw  his  left  leg. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Which  way  was  his  face  turned  ? 

Ansiver.  It  was  turned  to  the  port  side,  inclining  forward. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  was  he  from  Mr.  Everson  when  he  was  shot  ? 

Answer.  About  three  feet  or  two  ; between  two  and  three  feet;  not  more  than  arm’s  length  ; they  were 
quite  close  to  one  another. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  O’Neill  anything  in  his  hands  at  the  time  he  was  shot  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I cannot  say  whether  he  had  anything  or  no. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  he  anything  in  his  hands  when  he  passed  you  in  the  passage-way 
between  the  two  engines  on  his  way  to  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know,  sir ; I did  not  take  notice  of  anything  in  his  hands. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  off  were  you  from  the  place  where  the  shooting  took 
place  ? 

Answer , About  ten  feet  or  twelve  feet. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  light  was  there  in  the  fore  hold  at  the  time? 

Answer.  There  was  not  much  light  in  it.  The  light  came  from  the  engine-room  into  that  hold.  1 don’t 
know  whether  the  hatches  were  off  or  no.  I think  they  were. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  light  was  there  in  the  engine-room  at  the  time  ? 

5 


34 


Answer.  There  was  plenty  of  light.  There  were  two  large  skylights  or  one  very  large  one  right  over 
the  engines. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  the  skylight  extend  as  far  forward  as  the  bulkhead  between  the 
engine-room  and  the  fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; there  was  a companion  forward  of  the  skylights,  and  this  companion  was  close  up  to 
the  bulkhead  ; it  was  open  at  the  time  of  the  shooting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  any  one  in  the  fore  hold  at  the  time  of  the  shooting  except  Mr 
Everson  and  O’Neill  ? 

Answer.  I could  not  say.  I don’t  know* who  was  in.  I did  not  see  any  one  else  go  in.  I saw  Tom 
go  in,  but  I did  not  see  him  at  that  time.  Tom  is  (demon,  the  leading,  stoker. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  O’Neill  armed  ? 

Answer.  No  ; he  had  no  weapons  with  him. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  State  how  many  persons,  and  who,  were  down  below  at  the  time  of  the 
shooting- 

Answer.  Well,  there  was  me,  and  O’Neill,  and  the  lieutenant,  Mr.  Everson,  and  the  coal-passer,  but  I 
did  not  see  him  at  the  time,  though.  Gernon  was  down  there  too. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  the  shooting,  did  any  one  come  down  besides  the  surgeon  of  the 
Victoria  ? 

\ 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  the  engineer,  Mr.  Webster,  came  down  and  another  gentleman,  so'me  called  him  the 
pilot,  and  some  called  him  the  mate ; there  were  several  other  people  came  down.  I cannot  say  who  they 
were.  I am  not  sure.  I cannot  say  whethir  they  were  the  Victoria’s  men  or  the  Nicholas’s.  I was  so  much 
put  about  myself. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  Gernon  told  the  accused  “ Youv’e  shot  that  man,”  what  reply 
did  the  accused  make  ? 

Answer.  None  that  any  one  could  hear  him. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  you  notice  if  O’Neill  had  in  his  possession,  previous  to  being  shot,  any 
articles  of  clothing  which  had  been  taken  from  the  cargo  of  the  Nicholas  I ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; he  had  some  coats,  shirts,  and  trowsers,  that  were  taken  from  the  cargo. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Had  he  them  on  at  the  time  of  the  shooting,  or  where  were  they  ? 

Answer.  He  had  the  trowsers  on  ; them  was  the  ones  he  was  shot  in,  and  which  were  cut  off.  I think 
the  other  articles  were  forward  where  he  lived,  in  the  forecastle. 

Question  by  the  court.  Do  you  know  if  any  part  of  the  cargo  of  the  Nicholas  I,  taken  by  the  crew, 
was  stowed  near  the  fore  hold,  where  O’Neill  was  shot  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ; whatever  I saw  him  take  out  of  the  hold,  I saw  him  go  up  on  deck  with  it.  There  was 
.a  black  box,  and  I saw  him  put  some  clothes  into  that  ; that  box  was  in  the  engine-room.  He  got  the  clothing 
which  lietook  from  the  between  decks  forward.  There  were  some  of  the  crew  up  above  on  the  between 
decks  throwing  them  down  into  the  bunker  hold,  into  the  after  part  of  the  forward  hold,  and  he  got  them 
from  the  bunker  hold,  what  I saw  him  get. 

Question  by  the  Court.  At  what  time  did  you  see  O’Neill  get  the  clothing  from  the  bunker  hold;  was  it 
before  or  after  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  the  capture,  about  an  hour  before  he  was  shot. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  the  clothing  being  thrown  down  from  above  at  the  time  you  saw  O’Neill 
getting  it  out  of  the  bunker  hold,  or  had  it  been  thrown  down  before? 

Answer.  Well,  it  was  on  the  flooring  when  I saw  it.  I did  not  see  any  being  thrown  down. 

And  thereupon  the  court  adjourned  until  Monday,  September  the  twenty-sixth,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in 
the  morning. 

NINTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Monday,  September  26,  IS64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  Saturday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court,  as  Saturday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  with  his  counsel,  were  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  Saturday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 


Tiie  examination  of  the  witness,  Michael  Murphy,  is  now  resumed. 

The  court  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  accused  proceeds  to  cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  From  the  time  of  your  discharge  in  Philadelphia,  after  the  capture  of  the 
Nicholas,  what  has  been  your  occupation,  and  where  have  you  been  employed  ? 

Answer.  1 have  been  a fireman  ever  since ; I have  been  employed  at  Liverpool. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  did  you  arrive  in  New  York  from  Liverpool,  and  at  whose  request  did 
you  come  here  ? 

Answer.  I arrived  from  Liverpool  at  Boston  on  Thursday;  I think  it  would  be  the  fifteenth  of  Aui«'u«t 

*.  o’ 

I think.  I came  at  the  request  of  Lord  Lyons. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  paid  your  expenses  from  England  here? 

Answer.  Mr.  Batason,  at  Castle  street,  Liverpool;  I don’t  know  the  number.  I cannot  say  what  he  is, 
but  he  had  a letter  directed  for  me  from  Lord  Lyons.  He  showed  me  the  letter. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  Mr.  Batason  the  owner  of  the  Nicholas? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I could  not  say  what  he  is. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  who  owned  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  A man  by  the  name  of  Glaisbrooke;  he  lived  in  Cable  street,  off  Castle  street,  in  Liverpool. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  agreement,  if  any,  was  made  with  Mr.  Batason,  as  to  compensating  you 
for  coming  here  to  attend  this  trial? 

Answer.  My  agreement  was  for  four  pounds  ten  shillings  a month,  until  I arrived  at  home  in  Liverpool 
and  all  my  expenses,  paid.  The  agreement  was  made  with  Mr.  Batason. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  and  with  whom  have  [you]  lived  in  New  York  since  you  arrived  here? 

Answer.  Patrick  Joyce,  13  Morris  street. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Does  O’Neill  live  there? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Have  you  talked  with  any  one,  if  so,  whom,  about  what  you  should  testify 
to  on  this  trial? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I have  not  talked  with  any  one  about  what  I should  testify  to  on  this  trial. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Have  you  not  talked  with  O’Neill  aborrt  it,  or  about  the  shooting? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  did  O’Neill  say? 

Answer.  Well,  he  said  what  I said  was  true.  I might  have  had  conversation  now  and  again,  but  I 
never  took  much  notice.  I could  not  say  where  it  was.  I cannot  say  when  it  was.  It  was  a week  ago,  or 
two.  ¥ 

Question  by  the  accused.  Has  O’Neill  told  you  what  he  testified  to  on  this  trial? 

Answer.  Well,  he  might  have  said  an  odd  word,  here  and  there,  sir;  but  I never  questioned  him  any. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Has  O’Neill  at  any  time  shown  you  any  affidavits  or  statements  made  by  him 
to  the  English  consul,  or  has  any  one  else  shown  you  such  papers?  If  so,  who  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ; neither  O’Neill  nor  any  one  else  has  shown  me  any  such  papers. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Has  O’Neill  at  any  time  told  you  he  expected  to  get  compensation  from  the 
United  States  government  for  the  shooting,  if  Mr.  Everson  is  convicted? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  much  money  did  he  say  he  expected  to  get? 

Answer.  He  never  mentioned  any  money,  sir — how  much. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  he  say  he  expected  to  get  a large  or  a small  sum  ? 

Answer.  He  expected  to  get  so  much  a month,  from  the  time  he  got  captured  till  he  got  home.  I told 
him  I did  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  much  a month  did  he  say  lie  expected  to  get? 

Answer.  He  expected  to  get  the  money  that  he  was  getting  in  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  she  was  captured  ; 
that  would  be  about  ten  pounds  a month. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Have  you  at  any  time  loaned  him  any  money,  or  has  he  promised  you  anything 
if  he  gets  money  from  the  United  States  government? 

Answer.  Well,  I might  have  given  him  five  or  ten  cents,  but  never  expected  it  back  again.  Well, 


36 


lie  told  me  lie  should  have  a spree  at  home  if  he  got  his  wages.  I told  him  I did  not  want  no  spreeing ; that 
it  was  my  duty  to  come  out  here. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  engaged  for  the  Nicholas,  did  you  know  her  destination? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I did  not  think  ever  a boat  like  her  would  go  to  any  other  place  than  a neutral  port. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  she  was  not  going  to  a neutral  port? 

Answer.  It  would  be  in  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three.  We  were  lying  at  Nassau,  outside 
of  the  port,  while  we  were  at  anchor  there.  We  were  at  Nassau  three  or  four  days  before  we  put  the  powder 
out.  Then  we  put  it  out  on  board  a schooner  and  ran  up  into  the  harbor.  There  is  no  vessel  allowed  up  in 
Nassau  with  powder  on  hoard.  We  ran  up  tb  Nassau  and  discharged  part  of  the  cargo,  and  we  came  and 
lay  outside  again.  It  was  after  we  came  from  discharging  the  part  of  the  cargo  at  Nassau  that  I first 
learned  that  the  Nicholas  was  not  going  to  a neutral  port.  I don’t  know  whether  they  took  in  cargo  at 
Nassau,  or  not.  My  duty  was  down  below  in  the  stoke-hole. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  sign  articles  at  Nassau,  and  at  what  time? 

Answer.  Well,  I am  not  sure  whether  we  signed  an  agreement  or  no.  I knew  there  was  a shipping 
master  on  board,  and  I cannot  say  whether  I signed  or  no.  Well,  I could  not  say  I saw  any  of  the  crew 
signing  articles  or  no ; they  was  all  down  in  the  cabin,  and  the  shipping  master  among  them.  I wanted  not 
to  sign  off  the  articles  myself;  I mean  off  the  English  articles.  We  were  lying  outside,  after  coming  down 
from  Nassau,  at  the  time  I saw  the  crew,  and  the  shipping  master  among  them.  We  were  lying  at  Nassau  a 
long  time  ; I could  not  say  how  long — probably  three  weeks,  and  it  might  be  a week  after  I saw  the  shipping 
master  with  the  crew  that  we  sailed. 

Question,  by  the  accused.  Did  any  of  the  crew  who  were  shipped  at  Liverpool  leave  the  Nicholas  at 
Nassau? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  two  sailors ; there  might  be  more,  and  we  shipped  others  in  the  place  of  those  that  left. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Could  any  of  the  Liverpool  crew  have  left  the  Nicholas  at  Nassau  if  they 
had  wanted  to? 

Answer.  Yes ; we  all  could  have  left  her  if  we  had  wanted  to. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  the  shipping  master  was  on  board  at  Nassau,  did  you  know  where 
the  Nicholas  was  going? 

Answer.  Well,  partly,  I guess,  sir,  where  she  was  going;  I never  was  told  by  any  one,  except  the 
sailors  and  firemen,  and  they  knew  no  better  than  myself. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  know  whether  O’Neill  signed  articles  at  Nassau,  at  the  time  the  shipping 
master  was  on  board  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ; I didn’t  see  any  one  sign  the  articles ; all  I saw  was,  I saw  the  articles  down  in  the 
cabin;  I didn’t  see  any  one  sign  them.  I don’t  know  whether  O’Neill  signed  articles  at  Nassau;  he  never 
told  me.  lie  had  signed  them. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  pay  did  you  get  from  Liverpool  to  Nassau,  and  what  from  Nassau? 

Answer.  Three  pounds  fifteen  shillings  a month,  from  Liverpool  to  Nassau;  from  Nassau  we  got  ten 
pounds. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  you  to  get  anything  besides  ten  pounds  a month  if  the  Nicholas  made  a 
successful  trip?  If  so,  how  much? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  we  were  to  get  ten  pouuds  more  as  a present,  if  she  made  a successful  trip. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  this  compensation  only  for  firemen,  or  did  all  the  crew  get  the  same? 

Answer.  Well,  the  firemen  were  to  get  that;  I can’t  say  what  the  sailor  men  were  to  get. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  agreed  to  pay  you  ten  pounds  a month,  and  ten  pounds  additional  if  the 
trip  was  successful  ? Where  were  you  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  A man  named  Saunders,  in  Nassau;  he  offered  it  several  times.  I could  not  say  where  I was 
at  the  time.  He  offered' it  both  on  the  ship  and  on  the  shore,  and  we  refused  it.  I think  it  would  be  on  the 
shore  I was,  when  I finally  agreed  to  the  offer. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  do  you  mean  by  we;  all  the  firemen? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Why  did  you  hesitate  about  accepting  ten  pounds  a month,  when  you  had 
only  been  receiving  three  pounds  fifteen  shillings  a month  from  Liverpool  to  Nassau  ? 


Answer.  Well,  I would  sooner  go  home  when  I heard  the  rumor  about  her  running  the  blockade,  and 
she  being  an  old  vessel  I did  not  like  to  go  in  her. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  and  your  watch-mate  talk  the  matter  over  before  you  finally  agreed 
to  go  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  but  O’Neill  was  not  my  watch-mate  then. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  all  the  firemen  who  came  from  Liverpool  agree  to  go  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  talk  with  O’Neill  about  going? 

Answer.  Well,  yes,  sir;  we  all  spoke  together. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting,  how  do  you  know  Mr.  Everson  was  only  two  ox- 
three  feet  inside  the  fore  hold? 

Answer.  I seen  him,  sir. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  feet  were'  you  from  the  entrance  to  the  fore  hold?  Tell  exactly 
where  you  stood  at  the  time  you  saw  the  shooting. 

Answer.  I stood  betweexx  the  two  engines — between  the  starting-gear,  about  twelve  feet  from  the  hold. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  had  you  been  standing  there? 

Answer.  I might  have  been  there  ten  minutes  or  a quarter  of  an  hour. 

Question  by  the  accused.  From  where  you  stood,  could  you  see  the  engine-room  ladder? 

Ansioer.  I could  not  see  the  bottom  one,  but  I could  see  the  top  if  I looked.  There  was  a platform 
about  seven  feet  high,  and  the  bottom  ladder  Avent  up  to  this  platform,  and  in  going  up  your  face  Avon  Id  be  to 
the  port  side,  and  the  top  ladder  went  from  this  platform  up  through  the  companion-way,  and  in  going  up 
this  your  face  Avould  be  to  the  starboard  side. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  look  during  the  time  you  stood  by  the  starting-gear? 

Answer.  Well,  I might.  I Avas  sometimes  looking  all  OATer  the  engine-room. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  before  the  shooting  did  you  see  O’Neill  go  on  deck  ? 

Answer.  It  might  be  about  ten  minutes. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  it  after  or  before  Gernon  bad  asked  him  to  get  something;  and  bow  long 
Avas  it  after  he  asked  you,  “Were  there  no  good  lamps  in  the  ship?” 

Ansioer.  It  was  after  Gernon  had  asked  him  for  something.  It  Avas  before  he  asked  me,  “Were  there  no 
good  lamps  in  the  ship?”  I cannot  say  exactly  how  long  before;  it  might  be  a couple  of  minutes. 

Question  by  the  accused.  LIoav  long  after  O’Neill  went  on  deck,  before  he  came  doAvn,  did  you  see  him 
come  down,  and  Avhere  did  he  go  ? 

Answer.  Well,  he  might  be  oix  deck  five  minutes,  as  near  as  I could  go — five  or  ten  minutes.  I saAv  him 
come  down — that  is,  I saw  him  come  off  the  last  step  of  the  ladder — the  stoke-hole  ladder;  he  passed  me  and 
entered  the  hole  into  the  bunker-hold,  and  he  \xras  entering  in  when  I heard  the  report  of  the  pistol.  When 
he  came  doAvn,  be  asked  me,  “Where  was  Tom?”  that  is,  the  leading  stoker.  I told  him  that  he  Avas  in  the 
bunker  hold,  and  I told  bim  tbe  lieutenant  was  there  too.  He  left  me  then  axxd  Avent  l ight  towards  the  hole, 
and  Avent  right  in.  I could  see  bis  left  leg  outside  rather,  and  theu  I heard  the  report  of  the  pistol-shot. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  Avas  the  leading  stoker  at  the  time  of  the  report  of  the  pistol  ? 

Answer.  Well,  he  must  have  been  inside  the  hold.  I did  not  see  him  until  the  time  O’Neill  Avas  shot 
from  the  time  lie  went  in  at  first. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  quite  sure  you  could  see  Mr.  Everson  from  where  you  stood  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  quite  sure. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  you  saw  Geruon  first  after  the  shooting,  Avas  he  standing  or  walking;  and 
if  Avalking,  which  way  Avas  he  going? 

Answer.  I went  for  Gernon  as  soon  as  O’Neill  fell.  I loAvered  O’Neill  doAvn.  I told  Gernon  that  O’Neill 
Avas  shot,  and  he  said,  “I  knoAV  that.”  I cannot  say  whether  itAVfis  in  the  engine-room  or  the  passage  I met 
him  at  the  time;  by  the  passage,  I mean  the  entrance  from  the  stoke-hole  to  the  engine-room.  I cannot  say 
what  he  was  doing,  I was  myself  so  much  excited;  he  Avas  corniug  towards  the  stoke-hole. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  were  the  firemen  of  the  Nicholas  in  the  habit  of  cooling  themselves 
before  the  capture? 

Answer.  When  the  Avind  would  be  ahead,  they  would  get  into  this  hunker-hold.  When  there  Avas  too 
much  dust  they  would  sit  on  the  vice-bench  on  the  starboard  side  of  the  engine-room,  iu  the  forward  part. 


38 


They  used  to  cool  themselves  in  the  passage  when  there  was  no  coal  in  the  bunkers;  but  when  the  coal- 
passers  were  wheeling  coal  from  the  bunker-hold,  they  would  clear  out  and  go  under  the  ventilator,  or  go  on 
the  vice-bench.  They  would  be  in  the  way  of  the  barrow  in  the  passage. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  many  times  had  you  been  in  the  fore  hold  before  the  capture  of  the 
Nicholas,  and  how  many  times  before  the  capture  had  you  seen  O’Neill  in  there? 

Answer.  The  last  time  I was  in  there,  I think,  was  in  the  morning  when  I was  on  watch  ; that  was  from 
twelve  to  four.  I could  not  say  how  many  times  I had  been  in  there.  I’d  maybe  be  in  there  four  or  five 
times  in  a watch;  sometimes  more.  If  it  was  a fine  day  I would  go  on  deck.  I could  not  say  I had  been 
in  there  every  day.  When  they  had  coal  in  the  bunkers  we  could  not  get  in  there,  and  when  the  coal  was 
full  up  we  could  not  get  in  there;  but  when  once  they  began  to  clear  away  coal  from  there,  we  used  to  go  iu 
there  now  and  then.  I could  not  say  how  many  times  I had  seen  O’Neill  there  before  the  capture.  When 
he  would  be  in  there,  I would  be  in  the  stoke-hole.  It  was  very  seldom  we  could  both  of  us  be  in  there 
together.  One  of  us  had  to  be  in  the  stoke-hole  to  see  to  the  steam  and  the  fires.  It  was  not  allowed  for 
us  to  be  in  there  together,  but  we  have  been  in  there  together;  we  kept  our  water  there  for  drinking;  we  used 
to  cover  it  up ; it  was  the  coolest  part  of  the  ship.  Oftentimes  we  used  to  take  a drink  every  fire.  It  was  a 
usual  thing  for  us  to  go  in  there.  I cannot  say  how  many  times  exactly  I have  known  of  O’Neill  being  in  there. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  before  the  shooting  did  you  tell  demon  about  the  powder  in  the 
fore  hold  ? 

Answer.  Well,  it  might  be  an  hour;  about  an  hour. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  the  Nicholas  at  anchor  at  the  time  you  told  Gemon  about  the  powder? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  she  was  going  ahead. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  before  the  shooting  were  the  sentries  placed  at  the  entrance  to  the 
engine  and  fire  rooms?  Where  was  the  ship  at  the  time ; had  she  arrived  off  Wilmington? 

Answer.  I think  the  ship  was  at  sea  at  the  time  the  sentries  were  placed.  I do  not  know  exaetlv  where 
she  was.  The  first  time  I noticed  the  sentries  was  when  I sent  the  coal-passer  for  a bucket  of  water,  and  he 
was  hindered.  I cannot  exactly  say  how  long  before  the  shooting  this  was.  It  might  he  half  an  hour  or 
three  quarters  of  an  hour. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Are  you  quite  sure  there  was  no  sentry  until  that  time? 

Answer.  Well,  there  might  be  a sentry  before  that,  but  I cannot  say;  that  was  the  first  I noticed  of  a 
sentry. 

Question  by  the  accused.  You  say  you  saw  all  the  men  aft  on  the  Nicholas  before  her  capture;  what 
were  they  doing  there  ? 

Answer.  Weil,  they  fired  a couple  of  shots;  the  Victoria  did  three  or  four,  I think,  and  the  men  were 
looking  out  for  the  shots. 

Qucstidn  by  the  accused.  Had  the  men  been  in  the  cabin  getting  liquor,  and  from  whom  did  they  get  it  ? 

Answer.  The  men  had  not  been  in  the  cabin  then,  getting  liquor  then,  not  till  after  we  were  captured; 
as  soon  as  we  were  captured  we  blew  off  steam  ; we  turned  her  head  right  round.  I saw  no  liquor  drank  in 
the  cabin.  What  liquor  I saw  was  on  deck.  I could  not  say  I saw  any  one  drinking. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  put  by  way  of  cross-examination,  the  judge  advocate  pro- 
ceeds to  re-examine : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  From  the  time  you  first  saw  the  leading  stoker  go  into  the  forward  or 
bunker-hold,  till  you  heard  the  pistol-shot,  did  you  leave  your  position  between  the  starting  gear  of  the  engines  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I don’t  think  I did ; I might  have  moved  about,  but  I stopped  somewhere  in  the  same 
position. 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  September  the  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four,  at  half-past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


TENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  Yore, 

Tuesday,  September  27,  lSh'4 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  with  His  counsel  were  also  present. 


39 


The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  re-examination  of  the  witness,  Michael  Murphy,  is  now  resumed : 

The  judge  advocate  here  read  to  the  witness  the  charges  and  specifications  against  the  accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  stated  everything  within  your  knowledge  and  recollection 
fully  and  in  detail,  in  relation  to  the  charges  and  specifications  preferred  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  against  the  accused,  just  read  to  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  judge  advocate  having  no  further  questions  by  way  of  re-examination,  the  accused  proceeds  to 
re-cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Had  O’Neill  been  drinking  on  the  day  of  the  capture  ? W^s  he  drunk  on  that  day  ? 

Answer.  I did  not  see  him  take  any  drink,  sir.  No,  sir,  I cannot  say  he  was  drunk.  He  might  have 
had  drink  in  him,  but  I did  not  see  him  take  any. 

Question  by  the  Court.  On  the  day  and  at  the  time  of  the  shooting  did  or  did  not  O’Neill  seem  to  you 
to  be  under  the  influence  of  liquor  to  any  degree? 

Answer.  Well,  he  looked  rather  unsteady;  this  was  a little  before  the  engineer,  before  he  asked  me 
would  I volunteer  At  the  time  of  the  shooting  he  had  no  signs  of  drink,  nor  just  before  he  was  shot. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  Michael  Murphy,  as  above  recorded,  is  here  read  over  to  him,  and  approved 
by  him  as  correct,  and  the  witness  now  retires.  The  judge  advocate  now  offers  and  reads  in  evidence  the 
final  decree  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  in  admiralty,  in 
the  case  of  the  United  States  against  the  steamer  “Nicholas  1st,”  her  tackle,  &c.,  and  cargo,  entered  May 
13,  A.  D.  1SG3,  a certified  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  C — “S.  C.  P.,”and  which  is  in  words 
and  figures  as  follows,  to  wit : 

“ At  a stated  term  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  southern  district  of  New 
York,  held  at  the  United  States  court-rooms  in  the  city  of  New  York,  on  Wednesday,  the  13th  day  of  May, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-three. 

“Present:  the  honorable  Samuel  E.  Betts,  district  judge. 

The  United  States 

vs.  >C— “S.  0.  P.” 

The  Steamer  Nicholas  1st,  her  tackle,  &c.,  and  cargo,  j 

“ This  cause  having  been  heard  on  the  libel,  and  proofs  and  testimony  taken  in  preparatorio,  no  claim  having 
been  interposed,  and  the  default  of  all  parties  having  been  taken  in  open  court,  and  due  deliberation  being- 
had  in  the  premises,  now,  on  motion  of  E.  Delafield  Smith,  attorney  of  the  United  States,  it  is  ordered, 
adjudged,  and  decreed  by  the  court,  that  the  steamer  Nicholas  1st,  her  tackle,  &c.,  and  cargo,  be  condemned 
and  forfeited  to  the  United  States,  on  the  ground  that  the  said  captured  property  is  lawful  prize  of  war.  And 
it  is  further  ordered,  adjudged,  and  decreed,  that  the  costs  and  disbursements  herein  be  adjusted  and  paid 
according  to  law ; and  that  the  clerk  of  this  court  issue  a writ  of  venditioni  exponas  directed  to  the  marshal 
of  the  district,  returnable  on  the  second  day  of  June,  1S63,  against  the  said  vessel  and  cargo.  That  before 
the  sale  by  the  said  marshal  under  the  vc7iditioni  exponas,  the  said  steamer  Nicholas  1st,  her  tackle,  &c., 
engines,  and  boilers,  and  cargo,  be  appraised  by  the  prize  commissioners,  and  by  experts  to  be  by  them  named, 
and  that  such  appraisement  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  this  court. 

“That  said  writ  of  venditioni  exponas  be  executed  by  the  marshal,  under  the  superintendence  and  direc- 
tion of  the  prize  commissioners.  That  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  be  forthwith  deposited  by  the  marshal  as  , 
required  by  law,  and  that  he  make  a full  and  complete  return  of  the  said  writ  into  the  registry  of  the  court, 
specifying  the  amount  received  for  each  article  sold,  and  of  his  deposit  aforesaid.  That  the  prize  commis- 
sioners shall  proceed,  under  the  direction  of  the  court,  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  entry  of  this  decree,  to 
take  the  requisite  evidence  and  report  the  same  to  the  court,  to  the  end  that  a final  decree  may  be  made 
herein,  determining  what  public  ships  of  the  United  States  are  entitled  to  share  in  the  prize,  and  whether  the 
prize  was  of  superior,  equal  or  inferior  force  to  the  vessel  or  vessels  making  the  capture. 

“SAML.  E.  BETTS,  [seal.] 

“ A true  copy : 

“ GEO.  F.  BETTS,  Clerk.” 


40 


The  evidence  for  the  prosecution  is  here  closed. 

The  accused  now  calls  Acting  Ensign  Charles  II,  Sawyer,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn  by  the  president 
of  the  court,  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories,  testified  as  follows  : 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  is  your  name,  and  rank  in  the  United  States  navy  ? 

Answer.  My  name  is  Charles  H.  Sawyer ; my  rank  is  acting  ensign. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  board  the  steamer  Nicholas  I on  the  twenty- first  day  of  March, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty -three  '?  If  so,  by  whose  directions,  and  who  accompanied  you,  and  at  what  hour 
of  the  day  was  it  ? 

Answer.  I did  board  the  Nicholas  I on  the  twenty-first  day  of  March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three, 
by  orders  of  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Hooker,  commanding  the  Victoria.  Acting  Assistant  Paymaster 
Bradford  accompanied  me.  No  other  officers  accompanied  me ; there  was  a boat’s  crew.  I think  it  was  just 
past  nine  iu  the  morning  when  we  boarded  her — about  a quarter  to  half  past  nine.  There  had  another  boat 
from  the  Victoria  boarded  the  Nicholas  before  this.  Acting  Master  Everson,  executive  officer  of  the  Victoria, 
and  Second  Assistant  Engineer  Webster,  of  the  Victoria,  in  charge,  went  in  this  first  boat.  This  boat  had 
boarded  the  Nicholas  a very  short  time  before  ours,  perhaps  fifteen  minutes. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Please  state  fully  the  condition  of  the  Nicholas  and  her  officers  and  crew  at  the 
time  you  boarded  her. 

Answer.  When  I stepped  on  deck,  I saw  the  crew  on  deck — I suppose  pretty  much  all  that  were 
employed  on  board  of  her.  I saw  the  captain  at  the  cabin  companion-way.  He  appeared  to  be  greatly 
excited — as  I then  supposed,  under  the  influence  of  liquor,  and  in  a drunken  manner  remarked,  “We  had 
played  a trump  card,  and  he  had  lost,  and  he  hoped  for  better  luck  next  time.”  Everything  was  iu  confusion 
about  the  decks.  I noticed  empty  bottles,  and  bottles  with  liquor  in  them  ; also,  articles  of  clothing,  hoots 
and  shoes,  loose  on  the  deck  where  they  had  been  broken  open,  and  selections  had  been  made  from  them. 
The  cases  had  been  broken  open  and  the  contents  taken  out,  and  the  cases  thrown  overboard,  for  I saw  them 
on  my  way  to  the  Nicholas  from  the  Victoria.  Well,  at  that  time  I don’t  know  that  there  was  anything  else 
special.  When  I went,  on  board  guards  were  being  placed  at  the  companion-ways  and  hatches.  The  crew 
were  more  or  less  intoxicated. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  James  O’Neill,  a witness  who  has  been  examined  in  this  case? 
Did  you  see  him  on  the  Nicholas  on  the  day  of  her  capture?.  If  so,  what  was  his  condition,  and  at  what  time 
and  whereabouts  did  you  see  him  ? 

Answer.  I know  James  O’Neill,  a witness  who  has  been  examined  in  this  case.  I saw  him  on  the 
Nicholas  on  the  day  of  her  capture.  He  was  a fireman.  The  first  that  I particularized  him  was  after  he  was 
shot.  I then  knew  that  he  was  a fireman.  He  was  lying  upon  the  fire-room  floor.  I had  been  told  that  he 
had  been  shot  by  Mr.  Everson,  and  was  wounded. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  O’Neill  sober  or  not,  and  how  do  you  know  ? 

Answer.  After  we  got  him  on  deck  I discovered  that  he  was  intoxicated.  I observed  from  the  manner 
hi  which  he  appeared  while  the  surgeon  was  dressing  his  wound.  As  near  as  I can  recollect  it  was  a kind  of 
half  crying  manner,  not  such  an  one  as  if  he  was  in  pain.  He  used  some  expressions  at  the  time.  I cannot 
recollect  what  they  were.  They  gave  me  the  impression  at  the  time  that  lie  was  intoxicated.  I had  seen  others 
before  in  the  same  way.  I don’t  mean  to  say  that  he  was  fully  intoxicated — lie  was  very  singular  in  his 
manner  of  speech.  If  I bad  seen  the  man  on  the  street  I should  say  he  was  two-tliirds. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  you  below  at  the  time  O’Neill  was  shot  ? If  not,  how  long  afterwards 
did  you  go  below,  and  who  were  there  ? 

Answer.  I was  not  below  at  the  time  O’Neill  was  shot.  I was  on  deck.  I did  not  go  down  into  the  fire- 
room  at  all.  I saw  him  by  looking  down  the  fire-room  doors.  I superintended  getting  him  up.  Mr. 
Webster,  a fireman  from  the  Victoria  by  the  name  of  Gernon,  and  Mr.  Everson,  were  in  the  fire-room.  I am 
not  sure  that  Mr.  Webster  was  down  there.  There  were  others  on  deck  round  the  fire-room.  I don’t  recollect 
any  others  being  below. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  time  of  the  day  was  it  when  you  saw  O'Neill  on  the  fire-room  floor,  and 
where  was  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  I*  think  it  was  between  two  and  three  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  that  she  was  captured, 
that  I saw  O’Neill  on  the  fire-room  floor  of  the  Nicholas.  She  was  lying  near  the  senior  officer’s  ship,  near 
the  western  bar,  off  Wilmington,  North  Carolina,  at  anchor. 


41 


Question  by  the  accused.  During  the  day  of  the  capture  of  the  Nicholas,  were  her  officers  and  crew 
orderly,  or  otherwise  ? 

Answer.  Well,  they  were  rather  disorderly  at  times. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  was  the  condition  of  Mr.  Everson  on  the  day  of  the  capture  of  the 
Nicholas  ; was  he  not  at  all  times  perfectly  sober  and  self-possessed  ? 

Answer.  He  was  perfectly  sober  and  self-possessed. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  is  the  character  of  Mr.  Everson  as  an  officer,  and  what  means  have  you 
had  of  judging? 

Answer.  His  character  as  an  officer  is  good.  I judge  from  my  own  observation,  and  from  the  reports  of 
other  officers  with  whom  he  has  sailed  as  executive  officer,  and  also  from  reports  since  he  has  been  in  command 
of  a vessel.  I first  formed  his  acquaintance  in  Hampton  Roads,  when  we  reported  there  together  to  the 
admiral,  about  eight  or  nine  days  before  we  joined  the  Victoria.  We  joined  the  Victoria  on  the  twentieth 
day  of  Mareh,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  the  day  previous  to  the  capture.  I was  attached  to  the 
Victoria  with  him  nine  months.  He  sailed  in  the  Nicholas  to  New  York,  and  he  rejoined  the  Victoria  about 
the  last  of  June,  and  remained  as  executive  officer  ever  since,  up  to  the  time  when  he  was  ordered  to  the 
command  of  her,  about  the  first  of  November.  I was  detached  from  the  Victoria  the  latter  part  of  October, 
and  we  served  together  in  the  Victoria  from  the  time  we  joined  her  till  I was  detached,  except  while  Mr. 
Everson  was  absent  with  the  Nicholas  as  prize-master. 

Qucs'.i  n by  the  accused.  What  report,  if  any,  to  your  knowledge,  was  made  to  Mr.  Everson  about 
Powder  being  on  board  the  Nicholas;  by  whom  was  it  made;  and  what  did  Mr.  Everson  do  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Webster,  the  engineer,  reported  to  Mr.  Everson  that  there  was  powder  on  board  the  vessel 
in  my  presence  and  hearing.  Mr.  Everson  then  went  below  in  the  fire-room.  The  report  was  made  just 
before  the  shooting  affair  took  place.  Mr.  Everson  went  below  immediately  as  soon  as  the  report  was  made. 
1 think  he  did  not  hesitate  any  time. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  O’Neill  was  shot? 

Ansio  r.  I was  near  the  starboard  gangway. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting,  how  many  of  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas 
were  on  board  of  her,  and  how  many  of  the  officers  and  men  of  the  Victoria  were  on  board  ? 

Answer.  I think  all  the  officers  and  creav  of  the  Nicholas  were  on  board  at  the  time  of  the  shooting 
except  the  captain.  I don’t  know  the  number,  but  understood  at  the  time  there  were  about  thirty.  There 
were  five  officers  and  about  six  men,  I think,  of  the  Victoria,  on  board  at  the  time. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  judge  advocate  proceeds  to  cross-examine: 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  armed? 

Answer.  I did  not  notice  that  they  were.  I did  not  know  that  they  were. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas  at  the  time  of  her 
capture  ? 

Answer.  They  were  all  on  deck ; the  officers  were  aft ; the  most  part  of  the  men,  I think,  were  forward. 
Some  of  them  were  aft  near  the  gangways. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  been  placed  in  confine- 
ment on  account  of.  disorderly  conduct  ? 

Answer.  They  had  not  after  the  capture  until  that  evening,  after  the  shooting.  There  were  two  of  them 
confined.  These  were  confined,  as  I understood  at  the  time,  for  insolence  and  disorderly  conduct.  This  was 
two  hours  after  the  shooting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  men  came  in  the  boat  in  which  you  boarded  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  Five. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  of  the  men  who  came  aboard  in  the  boat  in  which  you  boarded 
her  return  to  the  "V  ictoria  ? 

Answer.  They  did.  A boat’s  crew  and  one  or  two  others  came  aboard;  a boat’s  crew  was  kept  on  board 
and  tlie  others  returned  to  the  Victoria,  and  went  between  the  two  ships. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  the  officers aud men  of  the  Victoria  onboard  the  Nicholas  armed? 

Answer.  They  were. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  the  Nicholas  steam  up  from  the  place  of  her  capture  to  the 
anchorage  off  Wilmington  alone,  or  did  the  Victoria  accompany  her  ? 

6 


42 


Answer.  The  Victoria  accompanied  her — no  other  vessel. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  did  you  remain  on  hoard  the  Nicholas  ? 

Ansioer.  From  the  time  of  her  capture  until  she  sailed — the  evening  of  the  second  day  after  her  capture. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  any  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  help  work  the  vessel  up  to  the 
anchorage  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  in  the  fire  department — in  the  engineer’s  department. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  told  you  that  O’Neill  had  been  shot  by  Mr.  Everson  1 

Ansioer.  Mr.  Webster. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  O’Neill  had  been  shot  and  brought  upon  deck,  did  not  the  surgeon 
of  the  Victoria  give  him  some  stimulant  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  that  he  did. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  not  O’Neill  faint  away  after  he  was  brought  up  on  deck  ? 

Answer.  I am  not  aware  that  he  did. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  the  accused,  Mr.  Everson,  take  any  wine  or  spirits  on  the 
day  of  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  I think  that  he  took  some  wine  at  dinner — claret,  if  I recollect.  At  least,  I relieved  him  at 
dinner.  There  was  wine  on  the  table.  I did  not  see  him  drink  any. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  other  liquor  in  the  cabin  ? 

Answer.  I think  there  was.  I think  I saw  some  Jamaica  rum  there.  It  was  taken  by  the  surgeon  of 

the  Victoria  for  medical  stores.  It  was  taken  by  him  from  the  Nicholas  on  board  the  Victoria. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  time  did  you  have  dinner  that  day  ? 

Answer.  I won’t  be  positive  whether  it  was  before  or  after  the  shooting.  It  was  very  late,  I recollect. 

I think  it  must  have  been  after  the  shooting.  I would  mention  that  a puncheon  of  liquor  was  thrown  over- 
board that  was  found  in  the  hold  ; it  was  tapped  and  let  run  off  into  the  bilge.  This  was  done  by  myself  by 
order  of  Captain  Hooker.  It  was  full ; it  had  never  been  broached.  This  was  done  in  the  evening,  an  hour 
or  two  after  the  shooting.  Captain  Hooker  visited  the  Nicholas,  and  he  gave  orders  to  broach  the  puncheon 
and  turn  it  off  into  the  bilge,  which  was  done. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  been  in  actual  company  or  sight  of  Mr.  Everson  all  day  after 
the  capture,  up  to  the  time  of  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  I had. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  no  time  when  he  was  in  the  cabin  and  you  on  deck,  or  the 
reverse? 

Answer.  I don’t  recollect  that  there  was.  We  were  busy  taking  the  ship  up.  He  was  in  actual 
command  of  the  ship.  I don’t  recollect  his  going  below  from  the  time  of  my  boarding  her  to  the  time  of  our 
coming  to  anchor. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  after  you  had  come  to  anchor  did  the  shooting  take  place  ? 

Answer  It  was  a short  time  ; I can’t  say  the  exact  time.  I think  we  came  to  anchor  between  one  and 
two,  or  about  one. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  After  you  came  to  anchor,  did  Mr.  Everson  go  into  the  cabin  while  you 
remained  on  deck  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  recollect  that  he  did. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  If  you  relieved  him  at  dinner,  was  he  not  down  there  while  you  were 
on  deck  ? 

Ansioer.  There  was  a mess-room  on  deck,  and  we  had  dinner  in  this  mess-room. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  rum  or  spirits  in  the  mess-room  ? 

Answer.  None  that  I saw,  except  this  bottle  of  claret  that  I saw  then  at  dinner ; there  was  no  locker 
in  it — simply  a table. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  this  mess  enclosed  and  covered? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  companion  into  the  cabin  from  it,  or  any  other  means 
of  direct  access  from  it  to  the  cabin  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  there  was  not ; it  was  a room  off  the  after  end  of  the  engine-room  house. 


48 


Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  you  seen  Mr.  Everson  drinking  wine  or  spirits  at  any  time  on  the 
day  of  the  capture  before  the  shooting? 

Answer.  I did  not. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  there  anything  said  by  the  officers  of  the  Victoria,  among  themselves  or  to 
the  party  of  the  Nicholas,  about  the  state  of  that  vessel’s  crew,  as  described  by  you? 

Ansicer.  No,  sir ; it  was  a common  theme  of  conversation  on  board  the  Victoria,  and  so  admitted  by  the 
officers  of  the  Nicholas ; I mean  by  its  being  so  admitted,  that  two  of  the  officers  of  the  Nicholas,  who 
were  on  board  the  Victoria,  sent  a note  of  apology  to  Captain  Hooker  and  begging  him  not  to  make  the 
affair  public;  that  it  might  injure  them  in  getting  business  in  future;  one  was  the  second  mate,  and  the  other 
was  an  engineer. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  there  anything  said  about  shooting,  before  the  shooting  of  O’Neill  ? 

Ansivcr.  I don’t  recollect  that  there  was.  Mr.  Webster,  in  reporting  the  disorderly  conduct  of  the 
firemen  to  Mr.  Everson,  said  that  something  would  have  to  be  done ; this  lie  said  in  my  presence.  This 
report  was  made  on  the  starboard  side  of  the  quarter-deck,  just  previous  to  Mr.  Everson  going  below. 
The  vessel  was  lying  at  anchor  under  the  guns  of  the  Victoria  and  all  the  fleet. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  the  accused  give  any  reason  to  you,  or  in  your  hearing,  why  he  had  shot 
O’Neill  ? If  so,  state  it  to  the  court. 

Answer.  After  the  affair  was  all  over,  we  were  all  in  conversation  about  it ; I don’t  recollect  the  exact 
conversation,  but  understood  from  Mr.  Everson  that  it  was  to  prevent  O’Neill  going  into  a bunker  where 
the  powder  was. 

Question  by  the  Court.  You  stated  that  there  were  five  officers  of  the  Victoria  on  board  the  Nicholas 
1st,  at  the  time  of  the  shooting;  how  many  officers  were  there  attached  to  the  Victoria,  and  why  were  so  many 
sent  to  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  There  was  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Hooker;  Acting  Master  Everson,  executive  officer; 
myself  and  another  ensign  and  two  master’s  mates  attached  to  the  Victoria  as  line  officers  ; there  was  also  a 
paymaster  and  surgeon  and  four  engineers.  There  were  only  three  on  duty  on  the  Nicholas — myself,  Mr. 
Everson,  and  the  engineer ; the  others  were  the  other  ensign  and  the  surgeon ; the  surgeon  was  there  to 
visit,  simply,  and  see  the  ship,  and  the  other  ensign  came  there  with  a message  from  Captain  Hooker,  I 
presume.  The  paymaster  had  returned  to  the  Victoria  before  she  left  the  place  of  capture. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Were  any  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  after  her  capture,  turbulent 
and  disposed  to  resist  the  authority  of  the  officers  of  the  Victoria  in  performing  their  respective  duties  ? 

Answer.  They  were  turbulent,  and  disposed  to  resist  the  officers  of  the  Victoria  in  their  duties. 

Question  by  the  Court.  In  what  manner,  and  how  ? 

Answer.  In  attempting  to  pass  about  the  decks  through  the  night ; this  was  during  the  night  following 
the  day  of  her  capture. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  insubordination,  if  any,  took  place  among  the  officers  and  crew  of  the 
Nicholas  I,  previous  to  the  shooting  of  O’Neill  by  the  accused? 

Answer.  There  was  none  of  any  consequence. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  Mr.  Webster  make  a report  of  the  disorderly  conduct  of  the  crew 
and  of  the  powder  being  below  at  the  same  time,  or  did  he  report  them  at  different  times  ? 

Answer.  It  wms  the  same  time. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  Mr.  Everson  go  below  in  the  fire-room  and  engine-room  more  than 
once  before  the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  that  he  did  go  below  at  all  but  once,  and  that  was  after  the  report;  he  might  have 
gone ; it  was  quite  foggy,  and  I was  looking  out  for  the  vessel. 

The  judge  advocate  here  read  to  the  witness  the  charges  and  specifications  against  the  accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  stated  everything  within  your  knowledge  and  recollection, 
fully  and  in  detail,  in  relation  to  the  charges  and  specifications  preferred  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  against  the  accused,  just  read  to  you? 

Answer.  I think  I have ; there  is  nothing  that  I have  omitted,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  Charles  H.  Sawyer,  as  above  recorded,  is  here  read  over  to  him  and 
approved  by  him  as  correct,  and  the  witness  now  retires. 


44 


The  accused  now  calls  Acting  "Volunteer  Lieutenant  Edward  Hooker,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn  by 
the  president  of  the  court  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories  testified  as  follows  : 

Question  by  the  accused.  Wliat  is  your  name  and  rank  in  the  United  States  navy  ? 

Answer.  My  name  is  Edward  Hooker;  my  rank  is  acting  volunteer  lieutenant. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  what  hour  of  the  day  . did  you  go  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas 
I on  the  day  of  her  capture,  March  twenty-first,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three ; who  was  in  charge 
of  her;  and  what  was  the  condition  of  her  officers  and  crew,  and  of  the  vessel? 

Answer.  I think  it  was  about  four  o’clock  that  I went  on  board  the  Nicholas  I on  the  day  of  her 
capture  ; I am  not  positive  about  the  hour.  It  was  in  the  afternoon;  Acting  Master  Everson,  the  accused, 
was  in  charge  of  her;  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas  were  intoxicated ; the  ship  was  in  a good  deal  of 
disorder;  the  cargo  had  been  broken  into  by  the  crew. 

The  judge  advocate  objects  to  evidence  as  irrelevant,  which  relates  to  a time  subsequent  to  the  commission 
of  the  alleged  offence,  and  which  has  no  connexion  with  it. 

The  court  thereupon  decide  that  the  accused  in  his  examination  shall  confine  himself  to  matters  which 
have  some  connexion  with  the  questions  at  issue  ; but  that  as  the  accused  himself  can  best  judge  as  to  the 
object  of  his  interrogatories,  the  court  are  disposed,  with  this  caution,  to  allow  the  accused  every  latitude  in 
the  scope  of  Lis  examination. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  went  on  board  the  Nicholas  I,  w'hat  was  the  condition  of 
the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Victoria  who  were  on  board  as  prize  crew  ? 

Answer,  They  were  sober  and  attending  to  their  duties. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  my  report  made  to  you  at  the  time  you  went  on  board,  as  to  the  shooting 
of  James  O’Neill?  If  so,  by  whom  was  it  made,  and  what  reason,  if  any,  was  assigned  for  the  shooting,  and 
what  did  you  do  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a verbal  report  made  at  the  time  I went  on  board  the  Nicholas,  of  the  shooting  of 
James  O’Neill;  it  was  made  by  Mr.  Everson.  He  assigned  as  a reason  for  the  shooting,  that  O’Neill  was 
engaged  in  breaking  into  the  cargo  among  the  powder,  and  that  powder  had  been  put  into  the  coal-bunkers, 
emptied  into  the  coal-bunkers.  I ordered  him  to  make  a written  report  of  it,  which  he  subsequently  did. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  any  reports  made  to  you  in  reference  to  disorderly  conduct  of  the  crew 
of  the  Nicholas  ? If  so,  by  whom,  and  what  action,  if  any,  did' you  take  in  reference  thereto? 

Answer.  Verbal  reports  were  made,  on  my  going  on  board,  in  reference  to  disorderly  conduct  of  the  crew ; 
these  reports  were  made  by  Mr.  Everson.  I ordered  a number  of  the  crew  into  confinement;  I don’t  know 
how  many;  perhaps  two  or  three.  I placed  the  remainder  of  the  crew  on  the  port  side  of  the  quarter-deck 
and  placed  sentries  over  them.  At  night  I removed  a portion  of  the  crew  from  the  vessel ; a portion  of  them 
to  Victoria  and  a portion  of  them  to  the  Sacramento. 

Question  by  the  accused.  To  whom,  if  any  one,  did  you  send  the  report  of  Mr.  Everson,  and  did  you 
accompany  it  with  any  communication  from  yourself? 

Answer.  I indorsed  it  and  forwarded  it  to  Captain  Boggs,  the  senior  officer  present. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Everson,  and  what  is  his  character  as  an 
officer  ? 

Ansicer.  I have  known  Mr.  Everson  since  the  last  of  September,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  when 
I took  command  of  the  Victoria.  His  character  as  an  officer  is  very  good,  indeed.  He  came  to  me  recom- 
mended very  highly. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  judge  advocate  proceeds  to  cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  ITow  many  men  did  you  put  aboard  the  Nicholas  as  a prize  crew,  and 
what  officers  were  with  them  ? 

Answer.  There  were  an  acting  master  and  ensign  and  five  or  six  men,  two  engineers  and  a fireman  : I 
think  that  was  the  number. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  any  copy  of  the  written  report  of  the  accused? 

Answer.  I have  not. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  went  on  board  the  Nicholas  where  was  O’Neill,  the 
wounded  man  ? 

Answer.  I do  not  remember  whether  he  had  been  transferred  on  board  the  Victoria,  or  was  still  on  board 
the  steamer. 


45 


Question  by  the  judge  advoeate.  Did  he  make  any  statement  to  you,  or  in  your  hearing,  in  reference  to 
the  shooting  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  had  the  Nicholas  been  at  anchor  when  you  boarded  her? 

Answer.  She  arrived  at  the  anchorage  before  I did,  with  the  Victoria ; I think,  some  two  hours  before  I 
boarded  her. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  increase  the  number  of  the  prize  crew  after  you  had  boarded 
the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I did,  by  six  or  eight  men  and  another  officer. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  were  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas  when  you  boarded 

her  ? 

Answer.  They  were  most  all  on  deck  near  the  engine-room  and  the  gangway. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  officers  of  the  Nicholas  did  you  see  intoxicated? 

Answer.  The  mates,  engineer;  the  chief  engineer  I recollect  perfectly  well;  the  others  1 do  not  recollect 
so  distinctly. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  intoxicated  were  they? 

Answer.  The  mates  so  much  so  that  I put  them  into  confinement;  the  chief  engineer  so  much  so  that 
it  was  not  necessary  to  confine  him. 

Ques’ion  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  put  any  of  the  crew,  besides  the  mates,  in  confinement? 

Answer.  I think  I did ; I don’t  remember  how  many ; I gave  the  order  to  have  all  that  were  disorderly 
put  in  confinement ; I think  there  were  three  or  four;  I am  not  positive  about  the  number. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  September  twenty-eighth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

ELEVENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Wednesday,  September  28,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  with  his  counsel  were  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  cross-examination  of  the  witness,  Edward  Hooker,  is  now  resumed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  did  you  remain  on  board  of  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  I should  think  about  one  hour.  I was  on  board,  back  and  forth,  attending  to  the  business  of 
getting  the  ship  ready  to  go  away,  a number  of  times. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  go  on  board  as  soon  as  the  Victoria  came  to  anchor  ? 

Answer.  I did  not — I am  unable  to  say  how  long  afterwards.  I should  think  it  might  be  a half  or 
three-quarters  of  an  hour,  or  an  hour  possibly. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  sent  for  to  come  on  board  ? 

Answer.  The  report  of  the  shooting  was  made  to  me  ; but  I first  went  to  report  myself  to  the  senior 
officer  present  before  going  on  board  of  her. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  was  the  armament  of  the  Victoria,  and  what  number  of  men  did 
she  carry  ? 

Answer.  Two  eight-inch  guns  and  a thirty-pound  Parrott;  her  complement  was  sixty-eight  men. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  any  other  vessel  present  at  the  capture  ? 

Answer.  The  William  Bacon  was  within  signal  distance  ; she  is  a schooner,  armed  with  four  thirty-two 
pounders ; I do  not  know  her  complement ; she  was  short  of  men  at  the  time ; her  complement  was  about 
sixty  men. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  was  the  size  of  the  Nicholas  I ? 

Answer.  I think  six  hundred  and  forty  tons  English  measurement,  as  I recollect  it  from  her  register. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  was  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  vessels,  the  Victoria  and  the 
Nicholas,  from  the  time  of  the  capture  till  the  evening  of  March  the  twenty-first,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-four  ? 


46 


Answer.  After  putting  the  crew  on  board  the  Nicholas,  started  at  full  speed  for  Cape  Fear  bar,  and  the 
Nicholas  did  the  same.  The  Nicholas  was  the  fastest  vessel  of  the  two,  and  came  to  the  anchorage  before 
the  Victoria.  She  was  in  sight  of  me  all  the  time,  and  had  she  had  signals  I would  have  been  within  signal 
distance.  I think  she  was  out  of  gun-shot  of  the  Victoria  when  she  was  near  the  fleet. 

The  judge  advocate  having  no  further  questions  to  put  by  way  of  cross-examination,  the  accused  pro- 
ceeds to  re-examine. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  means  had  you  of  judging  of  the  intoxication  of  the  officers  and  crew 
of  the  Nicholas  on  the  day  of  her  capture  ? 

Ansiver.  I saw  them  ; personal  observation,  the  admissions  of  the  captain  of  the  Nicholas,  and  the  admis- 
sions of  the  officers  of  the  ship.  When  the  report  of  the  shooting  came  on  board  my  ship,  the  captain  of  the 
Nicholas  was  very  urgent  to  go  on  board  the  Nicholas  himself.  He  stated  that  he  had  given  the  crew  free 
access  to  all  the  spirits  in  the  cargo,  and  he  knew  them  to  be  drunk,  and  he  thought  he  could  have  more 
authority  over  them  in  their  drunken  condition  than  my  officers  would.  The  officers — the  mates,  whom  I 
had  put  in  confinement — the  next  day  wrote  a note  apologizing  for  the  disturbance  and  disorderly  conduct  on 
board  the  ship,  stating  that  it  grew  out  of  drunkenness,  all  hands  being  intoxicated,  and  requesting  me  not  to 
make  public  report  of  it,  as  it  would  injure  them  in  obtaining  responsible  situations  on  their  return  to  England. 
They  also  made  the  same  request  verbally  once  or  twice  afterwards.  I ha.ve  looked  for  this  note  and  could 
not  find  it.  I presume  I have  destroyed  it  with  other  papers  Avhieh  I did  not  consider  of  sufficient  value  or 
importance  to  keep.  The  captain  of  the  Nicholas  was  brought  on  board  the  Victoria  at  the  very  time  of  her 
capture,  and  was  not  on  board  again  till  I put  him  on  board  to  send  him  north. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  Mr.  Everson  at  all  times  when  you  saw  him,  on  the  day  of  the  capture, 
perfectly  sober,  or  otherwise  1 

Answer.  He  was  perfectly  sober.  I have  never  seen  him  otherwise. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  any  report  made  to  you  of  the  insubordination  of  the  officers  and  crew  of 
the  Nicholas  I,  previous  to  the  report  being  made  to  you  that  O’Neill  had  been  shot  ? 

Answer.  There  was  not,  that  I recollect ; that  was  the  first  communication  from  the  ship.  There  was 
a verbal  report  came  to  me  at  the  time  of  the  seizure  of  the  ship,  that  the  crew  were  all  drunk,  but  at  that 
time  they  were  not  disorderly.  This  report  was  made  by  the  officer  of  the  Victoria,  who  brought  the  captain 
of  the  Nicholas  on  board  of  the  Victoria.  I don’t  recollect  now  who  it  was. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness  as  above  recorded  is  now  read  over  to  him,  and  he  states  that  he  is  not 
positive  whether  the  prize  crew  of  the  Nicholas  was  increased  before  or  after  his  going  on  board  of  her;  that 
he  is  now  under  the  impression  that  the  number  of  the  prize  crew  was  increased  before  he  went  on  board ; 
that  it  was  done  immediately  upon  its  being  reported  to  him  that  there  was  disorder  on  board,  but  he  is  not 
positive ; and  that  with  this  correction  the  testimony  as  above  recorded  is  approved  by  him  as  correct. 

The  witness  now  retires. 

The  accused  now  calls  Acting  Second  Assistant  Engineer  Thaddeus  D.  Webster,  who  being  firstduly  sworn 
by  the  president  of  the  court  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories  testified  as  follows  : 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  is  your  name  and  rank  in  the  United  States  navy1? 

Ansiver.  My  name  is  Thaddeus  D.  Webster;  my  rank  is  acting  second  assistant  engineer. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Were  you  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas  on  the  twenty-first  of 
March,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- three?  If  so,  in  what  capacity,  at  what  hour  of  the  day  did  you  go  on 
board,  and  how  long  did  you  remain  % 

Answer.  I was  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas  on  the  twenty  first  of  March,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-three  ; I went  on  board  as  engineer  with  Mr.  Everson,  when  he  went  on  board  of  her  as  prize  master  ; 
we  went  on  board  shortly  after  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning ; I brought  the  ship  to  New  York. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  Nicholas  on  the  day  of 
her  capture  1 

Answer.  Well,  I thought  they  were  all  intoxicated  at  the  time  I went  aboard;  they  were  all  what  von 
might  call  drunk,  as  far  as  I could  see ; I don’t  know  that  I saw  any  of  them  but  what  was  under  the  influence 
of  liquor. 


47 


Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  James  O’Neill,  who  was  a fireman  on  board  the  Nicholas?  If  so, 
what  was  his  condition  on  the  day  of  his  capture? 

Answer.  I’d  know  James  O’Neill',  who  was  a fireman  on  board  the  Nicholas  ; he  was  intoxicated  too. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  what  time  did  you  first  see  him,  and  what  was  his  condition  then  ? 

Answer.  It  was  when  we  got  the  ship  under  way,  to  get  up  to  the  fleet,  that  I first  saw  O’Neill.  The 
Nicholas  was  not  at  anchor.  The  engines  were  stopped,  with  banked  fires.  I went  to  the  chief  engineer 
and  asked  him  to  get  steam  up,  and  these  men,  O’Neill  among  them,  refused  to  do  it  unless  they  were  paid 
for  it.  That’s  when  I first  saw  O’Neill,  when  I was  talking  to  the  chief  engineer  about  getting  the  ship 
under  way.  O’Neill  was  intoxicated  at  that  time. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Who  worked  the  Nicholas  from  the  place  of  capture  to  the  fleet — what  firemen? 

Answer.  I don’t  know  all  their  names;  the  men  who  belonged  to  the  eight  to  twelve  watch;  this  O’Neill 
belonged  to  the  eight  to  twelve  watch ; he  was  one  of  the  men  who  fired  her  up 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  there  any  disturbance  in  the  fire  or  engine  room  of  the  Nicholas  on  the 
day  of  capture  ? If  so,  what  time  of  day  was  it,  and  who  participated  in  it,  and  what  did  you  do  about  it? 

Answer.  On  the  passage  up  they  got  quarrelling  among  themselves  in  the  fire-room,  and  I went  down 
and  ordered  those  not  on  watch  on  deck.  I suppose  we  had  been  under  way  then  about  half  an  hour  after 
we  had  started.  The  disturbance  was  among  these  English  firemen  ; Gernou  reported  to  me  that  they  were 
quarrelling  among  themselves,  and  that  he  couldn’t  do  anything  with  them.  The  men  I ordered  on  deck 
went  on  deck.  I then  left  the  fire-room  and  went  on  deck  myself. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  or  not  report  the  fact  to  Mr.  Everson?  If  so,  what  did  he  do  ? 

Answer.  I did  not  report  this  affair  to  Mr.  Everson. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  give  Gernon  any  directions  at  the  time  what  to  do?  If  so,  what? 

Answer.  I gave  Gernon  orders  that  if  the  men  gave  him  any  trouble,  not  to  stand  any  huinbuggery ; 
that  if  they  done  any  injury  to  the  engine,  not  to  hesitate,  but  to  shoot  them  right  down.  I told-  him  at  the 
same  time  that  if  they  didn’t  do  what  he  wanted,  to  report  them  to  me. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  there  any  other  disturbance  in  the  fire  or  engine  rooms  ? If  so,  when  was 
it,  who  was  engaged  in  it,  and  what  did  you  do  ? 

Answer.  The  next  disturbance  there  was  after  we  came  to  anchor,  after  the  fires  were  banked  ; then 
Gernon  reported  to  me  that  they  were  fighting  in  the  fire-room,  and  that  he  could  not  do  anything  with  them 
without  using  his  arms  on  them  ; and  I then  went  into  the  fire-room,  and  there  was  three  or  four  of  them  quar- 
relling among  themselves,  and  I ordered  them  up  on  deck;  three  of  them  went  up,  and  O’Neill  he  hesitated 
about  going  up.  1 put  my  hand  on  to  O’Neill  and  brought  him  across  the  fire-room  and  shoved  him  up  the 
ladder.  I told  him  if  he  did  not  go  up  peaceably  and  willingly  I would  have  to  shoot  him.  I did  not  draw  my 
pistol ; I had  it  on  me  in  a belt  by  my  side ; he  went  up  then,  and  after  he  got  on  deck  I reported  him  to  Mr. 
Everson,  and  asked  him  to  put  him  in  irons  ; Mr.  Everson  told  him  to  remain  on  deck,  and  then  gave  orders 
for  a sentry  to  be  placed  at  the  engine-room  and  fire-room  ladders  passage-way.  I then  went  down  below  into 
the  engine-room.  I gave  Gernon  orders  then  to  go  and  find  out  how  much  coal  there  was  in  the  ship,  he 
thought,  and  where  it  was ; I then  went  on  deck  and  went  into  the  cabin.  I suppose  it  was — well,  I had 
been  in  the  cabin  very  near  an  hour,  and  as  I was  coming  out  I was  told  that  Gernon  had  shot  one  of  the 
firemen — one  of  our  own  sailors,  that  we  had  on  guard  at  the  cabin  companion-way,  told  me.  I then  went  through 
the  engine-room  into  the  fire-room,  and  there  I found  this  man  O’Neill  lying  in  the  fire-room  ; he  was  then 
in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Parke.  I asked  Gernon  who  shot  him;  Gernon  answered  me  that  Mr.  Everson  shot  him- 
I asked  him  where  he  was  when  he  shot  him;  he  said  he  was  in  the  fore  hold.  I then  ordered  him  to  be  taken 
up  the  engine-room  ladder  instead  of  the  fire-room,  to  be  put  on  deck;  that’s  the  last  I see  of  O’Neill  as  he  went 
up  the  engine-room  ladder. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  you  reported  O’Neill  to  Mr.  Everson,  what  was  his  condition,  and 
how  long  was  this  before  you  saw  him  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Parke  ? 

Answer.  At  the  time  I reported  O’Neill  to  Mr.  Everson,  O’Neill  was  very  drunk — drunker  than  I had  seen 
him  before  that.  I think  it  was  about  an  hour,  it  might  have  been  a little  longer,  before  I saw  him  in  the 
hands  of  Dr.  Parke. 

Question  by  the  accused.  After  reporting  O’Neill  to  Mr.  Everson,  how  long  did  you  remain  in  the  engine- 
room;  and  when  you  went  from  there  to  the  cabin,  how  long  did  you  remain  in  the  cabin? 


48 


Answer.  I suppose  I was  in  the  engine-room  about  ten  minutes.  I might  have  been  in  the  cabih  and 
on  deck  about  half  an  hour;  it  was  longer;  it  must  have  been  three-quarters  of  an  hour. 

I would  here  state  what  I forgot  to  mention  at  the  time,  that  when  I went  down  in  the  engine-room  after  the 
shooting,  I asked  demon  how  O’Neill  got  down  there.  He  said  he  came  to  him  and  told  that  I had  sent  him. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  after  you  reported  O’Neill  to  Mr.  Everson  was  it  before  the  guards 
were  placed  at  the  engine  and  fire-room  ladders  ? 

Answer.  It  was  right  at  the  time  he  gave  orders,  or  a few  minutes  afterwards. 

Question  by  the  accused.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting,  was  it  O’Neill’s  watch  below? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  it  was  not;  his  watch  was  off;  it  had  been  off  at  twelve  o’clock. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  during  the  day  give  any  other  orders  to  O’Neill  which  he  refused  or 
hesitated  to  obey  ? If  so,  what  ? 

Ansiccr.  The  only  orders  given  by  me  he  refused  to  obey  was  going  on  deck  when  I ordered  him.  I 
don’t  know  of  his  refusing  to  obey  orders  given  by  anybody  else. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Please  look  at  Exhibit  A — S.  0.  P.,  and  state  whether  the  Nicholas  had  a 
sheet-iron  ventilator  extending  six  and  a half  feet  above  the  deck,  as  is  there  shown,  and  marked  3,  and 
whether  there  was  any  ventilator  from  the  deck  to  the  fore  hold. 

x\nswcr.  I don’t  recollect  of  any  such  ventilator.  I did  not  see  any.  I don’t  think  there  was  any 
ventilator  there,  to  my  knowledge.  I never  noticed  any  ventilator  there.  If  there  had  been,  I think  I should 
certainly  have  noticed  it  when  I was  on  watch.  I had  to  take  the  hatch  off  marked  4 on  the  plan.  I had  to 
take  the  hatch  off  to  get  a draught  of  air  through  the  engine-room  to  help  the  fires,  as  well  as  to  make  it  pleasant. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Is  the  plan,  Exhibit  A — S.  C.  P.,  correct?  If  not,  in  what  particular  is  it 
incorrect  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  correct;  there  is  no  bulkhead  in  the  fore  hold  between  numbers  11  and  12,  as  drawn 
on  the  plan.  The  only  bulkhead  there  was  there  was  the  bulkhead  which  divided  the  forecastle  off,  and  that 
was  forward  of  the  hatch,  marked  5.  That  was  the  only  bulkhead  forward  of  the  engine-room  bulkhead, 
marked  10.  I have  already  said  there  was  no  ventilator.  The  passage-way  through  the  engine-room  is  not 
right.  I had  to  take  the  hatch  on  the  between-decks,  under  No.  4,  out  also.  The  ladder  from  the  engine- 
room  companion  came  right  down  at  the  forward  end  of  the  engine-room.  The  position  of  the  fire-room  and 
boilers,  as  represented,  is  wrong.  There  are  coal-bunkers  between  the  engine-room  and  fire-room,  and  they 
are  not  on  the  plan.  It  is  all  wrong  according  to  my  idea  of  it. 

The  plan  “B,”  S.  0.  P.,  and  the  plan  “D,”  S.  C.  P.,  which  are  drawings  made  by  myself,  show  cor- 
rectly a sectional  elevation  and  a plan,  respectively,  of  the  Nicholas  I,  except  that  in  neither  of  them  is  the 
fore  hatch  marked  5 in  plan  A — S.  C.  P.,  or  the  forecastle  companion  represented,  and  that  in  B — S.  C.  P.  the 
forecastle  bulkhead  should  be  forward  of  the  foremast.  The  fore  hatch  was  aft  of  the  foremast,  and  there 
was  another  hatch  just  forward  of  the  engine-room.  The  engine-room  bulkhead  extended  the  whole  depth 
of  the  ship,  and  the  forecastle  bulkhead  was  way  forward. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  much  powder  was  found  on  board  the  Nicholas  ; where  was  it  stowed  ; 
where  was  the  entrance  to  the  place  of  storage,  and  what  kind  of  an  entrance  was  there  ? 

Answer.  There  was  said  to  be  sixteen  tons  and  a half  of  powder  on  board  the  Nicholas,  and  I should 
judge  from  the,  looks  of  it  there  was  all  of  that.  It  was  stowed  in  the  fore  hold.  It  was  forward  of  the 
engine-room  bulkhead,  about  twenty-five  feet  forward  of  the  bulkhead  ; there  was  an  entrance  to  the  fore 
hold  from  the  hatches  through  the  deck,  and  there  was  entrance  to  it  through  this  bulkhead  from  the 
engine-room.  The  entrance  through  the  bulkhead  was  merely  a door  about  three  feet  wide  and  five  feet  high, 
I should  suppose. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  at  any  time,  and  if  so,  at  what  time,  go  into  the  fore  hold  where  the 
powder  was  stowed,  and  what  was  the  condition  of  the  fore  hold — what  was  in  that? 

Answer.  I went  into  the  fore  hold  immediately  after  O’Neill  was  shot ; this  is  when  I first  went  in  there. 
There  was  coal;  first  there  was  coal,  then  there  was  tiers  of  powder,  and  salt  in  bags  forward  of  the  powder. 
There  was  some  casks  of  hardware,  or  crockery,  or  tinware — I think  it  was  tinware;  they  were  forward  of 
the  salt.  The  coal  was  partly  over  these  kegs  of  powder.  I found  one  keg  of  powder  broken  out  of  the 
tier  and  laid  on  the  top  of  the  coal.  That  is  all  that  I recollect  of ; I am  certain  there  was  nothing  more.  I 
think  there  was  some  bales  in  there  of  blankets,  &c.  The  cargo  was  all  broken  out  in  the  between-decks, 
and  the  covering  had  been  thrown  down  into  the  fore  hold,  and  some  of  the  clothing  had  been  thrown  down 
into  the  fore  hold — shoes  and  shirts.  The  cargo  in  the  fore  hold  had  not  been  broken  open. 


49 


Quest  ion  by  tlie  accused.  State,  if  you  know,  whether  Mr.  Everson  had  beeu  in  the  engine  or  firerooms 
or  fore  hold  of  the  Nicholas  until  immediately  preceding  the  shooting. 

Answer.  He  had  not,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Did  you  engage  O’Neill  to  work  the  Nicholas  to  Wilmington;  who  did  you 
have  conversation  with  about  it  ? 

Answer.  I had  conversation  with  the  chief  engineer  of  the  ship  about  it.  I did  not  engage  O’Neill  to 
work  the  Nicholas  to  Wilmington — not  particular.  The  conversation  I had  was  with  the  chief  engineer  of  the 
Nicholas.  O’Neill  was  only  listening  at  the  time. 

Question  by  the  accused.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Everson;  what  is  his  character  as  an  officer, 
and  what  means  have  you  had  of  judging? 

Answer.  I have  known  Mr.  Everson  about  eight  years,  I should  think.  I was  with  him  in  the  merchant 
service.  I have  been  shipmate  with  him  in  the  merchant  service  and  the  navy  about  three  years  altogether. 
His  character  was  always  good  ; I never  heard  anything  against  it.  I always  thought  in  my  own  mind  that 
he  was  a very  efficient  officer.  That  was  always  his  reputation. 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  kind  of  temper  has  he — cool  or  otherwise  ? 

Answer.  He  is  very  calm — very  little  liable  to  get  excited.  I don’t  kuow  as  I ever  see  him  excited.  I 
always  thought  him  a very  cool  man. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Was  he  or  not  at  any  time,  during  the  day  of  the  capture,  at  ali  under  the 
influence  of  liquor  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  he  was  not. 

The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  judge  advocate  proceeds  to  cross-examine  : 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  what  time  did  you  take  off  the  hatch  marked  No.  4,  in  plan  “ A.” 
S.  C.  P.,  and  the  hatch  underneath  that  on  the  between-decks  ? 

Answer.  That  was  after  we  started  from  the  anchorage  to  go  to  Beaufort  for  coal. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Had  these  hatches  been  off  or  on  in  going  up  from  the  place  of  capture 
to  off  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  They  had  been  on.  Hatch  No.  4 was  in  four  pieces,  and  the  after  part  on  the  port  side  of  it 
was  off  and  thrown  up  on  the  other  hatches  when  I first  went  aboard  of  her,  and  remained  so  till  after  we 
got  up  to  Wilmington.  After  this  affair  occurred,  the  hatches  were  put  on  and  fastened. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  hatch  on  the  between-decks  under  hatch  No.  4 open  in  whole 
or  in  part  at  the  time  of  the  capture,  and  while  you  were  going  up  to  the  anchorage  ? 

Answer.  That  was  always  off. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  see  any  of  the  cargo  broken  open? 

Ansicer.  No,  sir;  I saw  it  after  it  was  broken  open  on  the  between-decks  g I saw  that  from  the  deck. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  it  broken  open  before  or  after  the  capture? 

Answer.  It  was  broken  open  before  the  capture  ; before  we  went  aboard  of  her  it  was  scattered  all  over 
the  decks,  engine-room,  fire-room. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  any  measures  taken  to  gather  up  and  preserve  this  cargo  scat- 
tered about  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  it  was  all  picked  up  and  put  into  a small  room  on  deck — that  is,  what  of  it  was  on 
deck;  what  was  in  the  engine-room  was  piled  up  in  a pile  on  some  boxes.  This  was  done  that  evening  just 
before  sundown. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  and  where  did  the  conversation  between  yourself  and  the  chief 
engineer  of  the  Nicholas  about  working  her  up  to  Wilmington  take  place? 

Answer.  It  took  place  on  the  engine-room  hatchway  on  the  port  side,  just  after  we  had  gone  aboard — just 
after  I had  received  orders  to  get  ready  to  get  the  ship  under  way. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Who  were  present  ? 

Answer.  This  chief  engineer,  his  assistant  engineers,  and  some  three  or  four  of  his  firemen,  and  among 
them  this  O’Neill. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Do  you  know  Michael  Murphy,  who  has  been  examined  as  a witness  in 
this  case,  and  was  he  present  at  this  time  ? 


7 


50 


Answer.  I don’t  recollect  Ins  being  present  at  the  time.  I think  very  likely  he  was ; they  was  pretty 
much  all  up  there.  I believe  the  whole  department  was  there — all  of  them  that  were  sober  enough  ; they  all 
congregated  round  this  stairway. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  arrangement  did  you  make  with  the  chief  engineer  about  working 
the  ship  up  to  Wilmington  ? 

Answer.  Well,  when  I received  orders  from  Mr.  Everson  to  get  the  ship  under  way,  I went  to  the  chief' 
engineer  and  asked  him  if  he  would  send  his  men  below  and  have  them  spread  their  nres — that  we  wanted  to 
get  under  way.  He  said  he  could  not  do  anything  with  the  men;  that  they  would  not  obey  his  orders;  that 
they  did  not  intend  to  do  any  more  work  unless  they  got  paid  for  it.  I then  reported  it  to  Mr.  Everson. 
Mr.  Everson  told  me  that  we  could  not  do  anything  about  it  now ; that  we  could  not  make  any  arrangement 
about  paying  them  until  we  got  up  to  the  fleet.  I then  returned  and  told  this  engineer  that  we  had  no 
authority  to  make  any  arrangement  for  paying  them,  but  whatever  was  right  they  would  probably  be  paid ; 
that  in  all  probabilty  some  of  them  would  have  to  take  the  ship  home.  He  asked  the  men  if  they  was  willing 
to  do  it.  Part  of  them  refused  to  do  it.  Some  of  them  said.  No,  I don’t  care  about  working  unless  I can  get 
paid  for  it.  I then  told  the  engineer  that  it  was  only  an  hour’s  run  up  there,  and  that  we  could  then  make 
some  arrangement  about  paying  them.  They  then  concluded  that  they  would  work  the  ship  up  to  the 
fleet.  The  chief  engineer  then  asked  for  volunteers.  I told  him  to  put  his  regular  watches  on,  the  same 
as  they  had  been  standing  previous  to  the  capture.  This  O’Neill  then  came  to  me  and  said  be  would  like  to 
get  home  on  the  ship  to  New  York,  and  he  told  me  he  had  formerly  sailed  out  of  New  York  on  the  Collins 
line  of  steamers  ; on  board  the  Baltic,  I think  he  said.  He  was  intoxicated  at  the  time  ; he  was  just  able  to 
get  around;  considerably  intoxicated,  I should  say.  I then  asked  him  if  it  was  his  watch;  he  said  Yes 
my  watch  is  going  down  to  spread  the  fires  now.  I sent  him  down  to  G-ernon,  and  told  him  that  if  he 
would  behave  himself  and  keep  straight,  I would  try  and  have  him  go  to  New  York  in  the  ship.  They  got 
the  ship  under  way  and  took  her  up  there? 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  sent  O’Neill  down  to  Gernon  was  he  sober  enough  to 
do  his  duty  as  fireman? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  about  as  sober  as  any  of  them. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  many  firemen  of  the  Victoria  had  you  on  board  the  Nicholas? 

Answer.  One  man  ; this  was  Gernon  ; he  was  the  only  one  we  had  from  the  Victoria  in  the  fire  depart- 
ment till  we  got  up  to  the  fleet. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  is  the  distance  from  the  entrance  to  the  fore  hold  of  the  Nicholas 
to  the  entrance  to  the  fire-room ; that  is,  the  whole  length  of  the  passage  between  the  engines  and  the  coal 
bunkers  ? 

Answer.  It  is  about  thirty-five  feet. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  coal  was  there  in  the  forward  hold  of  the  Nicholas  at  the 
time  you  went  in  there  after  the  shooting,  and  how  and  where  was  it  stowed  there? 

Answer.  There  was  about  twelve  tons  in  there,  I should  think ; it  was  stowed  right  aft  of  the  tier  of 
powder,  clear  across  the  hold. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  the  after  part  of  the  forward  hold  clear  of  coal? 

Answer.  Not  entirely;  on  the  starboard  side  there  was  coal  chock  up  to  the  engine-room  bulkhead  ; on 
the  port  side  it  was  all  clear. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Where  the  coal  was  chock  up  to  the  bulkhead  on  the  starboard  side, 

how  close  was  it  to  the  side  of  the  door  which  led  into  the  hold  from  the  engine-room  ? 

Ansiuer.  It  was  nearly  close  up  to  the  side  of  the  ship — that  it  was  chock  up  to  the  bulkhead;  it  must 

have  been,  I suppose,  about  eighteen  feet  from  the  side  of  the  door. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  far  from  the  entrance  to  the  hold  was  the  keg  of  powder  you 
found  on  the  top  of  the  coal? 

Answer.  About  twenty  feet. 

And  the  coixrt  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  September  twenty -ninth,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


51 


TWELFTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Thursday , September  29,  1S64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court,  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  with  his  counsel,  wei’e  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  cross-examination  of  the  witness,  Thaddeus  D.  Webster,  is  now  resumed. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  When  were  the  plans  marked  “B”  and  “D,”  S.  C.  P.,  drawn  by  you? 

Answer.  Since  I have  been  summoned  as  a witness  here;  they  were  drawn  September  sixteenth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-four ; they  were  drawn  from  memory. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  time  did  the  Nicholas  get  to  the  anchorage  off  Wilmington? 

Answer.  Shortly  after  twelve  o’clock,  I think,  or  it  might  have  been  near  one  o’clock ; I think  I saw  the 
meal  pennant  up  on  the  flag-ship  before  I went  below ; I was  below  when  the  fires  was  banked,  and  when  I 
came  up  the  meal  pennant  was  down. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  What  time  was  the  officers’  dinner  served  on  hoard  the  Nicholas  on  the 
day  of  her  capture ? 

Answer.  About  four  o’clock  in  the  afternoon  ; it  was  after  the  shooting. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  attempt  made,  that  you  know  of,  by  any  of  the  firemen 
or  crew  of  the  Nicholas,  to  injure  the  engine  or  machinery? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ; they  altered  the  valve  stem-nuts  on  the  starboard  engine,  just  before  they  left  the  ship, 
some  time  in  the  morning  of  the  day  after  the  capture.  It  was  what  they  called  putting  a pot  on  it;  that 
engine  would  have  worked  very  inefficiently ; would  not  have  worked  up  to  its  power  with  this  alteration. 
When  they  were  leaving  the  ship  I heard  one  of  the  engineers  say  that  he  had  got  a pot  on  the  engine  any 
way,  and  I went  down  below' and  found  that  this  alteration  had  been  made.  There  would  have  been  a per- 
manent disarrangement  of  the  engine  if  I had  not  detected  it. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  At  the  time  you  saw  O’Neill  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Parke,  who  were 
in  the  fire-room  ? 

Answer.  Gernon  was  there,  and  I think  Murphy  stood  there  at  the  same  time;  there  were  three  or  four 
men  around  there ; they  were  English  firemen. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  door  in  the  doorway  which  made  the  entrance  from  the 
engine-room  to  the  forward  hold  ? 

Answer.  There  had  been  formerly  a door  there,  but  I could  not  find  it.  There  was  part  of  one  of  those 
boxes  I put:  up  against  the  door  after  this  affair  occurred. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Did  you  use  coal  out  of  the  forward  hold  after  the  shooting? 

Ansiver.  No,  sir,  not  on  that  day,  nor  the  next  day ; not  until  wc  left  the  anchorage  to  go  up  to  Beaufort. 
We  got  some  hard  coal  at  the  anchorage  off  Wilmington  and  run  all  night  with  it,  and  had  to  mix  soft  coal 
with  it  to  get  steam. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  any  coal  in  the  bunkers  in  the  fire-room  at  the  time  of  the 
capture? 

Answer.  There  was  very  little;  it  was  most  all  slack  that  was  in  there;  there  was  some  up  on  the  par- 
tition which  was  over  the  passage-way,  but  it  was  some  ways  to  get  at  it. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Was  there  anything  in  these  bunkers  except  coal? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  not  in  the  fire-room  bunkers,  and  it  was  principally  all  slack. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  much  of  the  time,  on  the  day  of  the  capture,  were  you  down  in 
the  fire  and  engine  rooms  of  the  Nicholas  ? 

Answer.  I was  out  and  in  there  about  all  the  time;  the  majority  of  my  time  I was  iu  the  engine-room 
and  fire-room. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  You  have  stated  that  the  powder  was  stowed  in  the  fore  hold.  Was  there 
not  some  powder  stowed  in  the  after  hold  ? 

Answer.  I did  not  see  any  there ; there  might  have  been  some,  but  I did  not  see  it. 


52 


Question  by  the  Court.  State  when  was  the  last  time  you  saw  O’Neill  pi-evious  to  tbe  shooting;  and  at 
this  time  what  was  his  condition  as  to  sobriety  ? 

Answer.  The  last  time  I saw  O’Neill  before  the  shooting,  was  when  I reported  him  to  Mr.  Everson ; it 
was  almost  one  hour  before  he  was  shot,  I should  judge;  he  was  drunker  when  I reported  him  to  Mr  Everson 
than  I had  seen  him  any  time  before  that. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  this  before  or  after  the  fires  were  banked? 

Answer.  This  was  after  the  fires  were  banked. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Did  tbe  Nicholas  I anchor  at  any  time  after  her  capture  on  the  twenty-first 
of  March  till  she  was  anchored  with  the  fleet  off  Cape  Fear  river  ? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge  ; no,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  reason,  if  any,  did  the  accused  give  to  you,  or  to  any  other  person  in 
your  hearing,  for  shooting  O’Neill? 

Answer.  I asked  Mr.  Everson  how  he  came  to  shoot  him,  and  he  told  me  he  supposed  he  was  going  to  put  a 
keg  of  powder  into  the  furnaces;  this  was  between  three  and  four  o’clock,  just  before  he  went  to  dinner;  I 
had  come  on  deck  at  that  time,  and  was  just  going  in  to  dinner  when  I asked  Mr.  Everson  this. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Do  you  know  if  there  was  any  liquor  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fire-room,  engine- 
room,  or  fore  hold,  which  the  crew  could  get  at  ? 

Answer.  I found  three  or  four  bottles  in  the  engine-room  when  I first  went  aboard  of  her ; I broke  them 
right  alongside  the  engine  into  the  bilge  of  the  ship. 

Question  by  the  Court.  What  were  the  orders  of  the  sentinels  placed  at  the  hatches? 

Answer.  Not  to  allow  anybody  but  the  watch  on  duty  to  go  down  there.  The  sentinels  were  not  marines; 
they  were  sailors. 

Question  by  the  Court.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting  of  O’Neill  what  firemen  were  on  the  watch  below? 

Answer.  I do  not  know  their  names  ; I think  this  Murphy  wms  one  of  them ; I think  there  was  four 
firemen  and  two  coal-passers  on  that  watch ; O’Neill  was  on  the  eight  to  twelve  watch. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  do  you  know  that  O’Neill’s  watch  was  the  eight  to  twelve  watch? 

Answer.  Because  he  went  down  with  the  watch  that  was  ordered  down  by  the  chief  engineer  to  spread 
the  fires.  He  said  at  the  time  it  was  his  watch.  The  chief  engineer  said  that  he  had  three  watches,  four 
on  and  eight  off. 

Question  by  the  Court.  Was  it  after  his  watch  was  out  that  he  was  ordered  on  deck? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  after  his  watch  was  out.  I sent  the  whole  of  that  watch  on  deck,  and  retained 
the  twelve  to  four  watch  on  duty  then;  what  they  were  quarrelling  about  among  themselves  was,  that  the 
twelve  to  four  watch  had  not  relieved  the  eight  to  twelve  watch  at  the  proper  time. 

The  judge  advocate  here  read  to  the  witness  the  charges  and  specifications  against  the  accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  stated  everything  within  your  knowdedge  and  recollection, 
fully  and  in  detail,  in  relation  to  the  charges  and  specifications  preferred  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  against  the  accused,  just  read  to  you? 

Answer.  I believe  I have,  sir,  as  far  as  my  memory  enables  me  to. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  Thaddeus  D.  Webster,  as  above  recorded,  is  here  read  over  to  him,  and 
approved  by  him  as  correct. 

The  witness  now  retired. 

The  accused  now  calls  Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs,  who  being  first  duly  sworn  by  the  president  of  the 
court  in  the  presence  of  the  accused,  in  answer  to  interrogatories  testified  as  follows : 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  is  your  name  and  rank  in  the  United  States  navy? 

Ansicer.  My  name  is  Charles  S.  Boggs ; my  rank  is  captain. 

Question  by  the  accused.  Do  you  know  anything — if  so,  what — in  relation  to  the  shooting  of  James 
O’Neill  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas,  March  twenty-first,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  and 
wrhat  is  your  means  of  knowledge  ? 

Answer.  I know  nothing,  of  my  own  knowledge — only  from  the  reports  made  to  me.  I forwarded  the 
reports  to  Admiral  Lee ; I have  no  copies  ; I ordered  an  investigation  at  the  time,  but  I forget  what  it  was- 

Question  by  the  accused.  What  is  the  character  of  Mr.  Everson  as  an  officer  ? 

Ansicer.  I always  considered  him  as  one  of  the  best  of  the  volunteer  officers — among  the  best  of  the 
volunteer  officers. 


53 


The  accused  having  no  further  questions  to  ask,  the  judge  advocate  proceeds  to  cross-examine. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  How  long  and  under  what  circumstances  have  you  known  Mr.  Everson? 

Answer.  I have  known  him  during  the  time  he  and  I were  attached  to  the  blockading  squadron  together ; 
about  seven  months,  I suppose. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Were  you  on  the  same  vessel  together? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Court.  You  have  stated  to  the  court  that  you  investigated  the  case  at  the  time  the  occur- 
rence stated  in  these  charges  took  place.  Was  your  investigation  by  yourself  personally,  or  by  a board  of 
officers  ? 

Answer.  By  a board  of  officers.  I ordered  three  officers  to  make  an  investigation  and  report  the  facts  to 
me,  and  I enclosed  it  to  the  admiral  with  my  views. 

Question  by  the  accused.  When  you  forwarded  the  report  spoken  of  to  Admiral  Lee,  what  opinion,  if 
any,  did  you  express  as  to  the  shooting? 

The  judge  advocate  objects  to  the  question,  on  the  ground  that  the  report  itself  should  be  produced  as 
the  best  evidence,  and  states  that  as  soon  as  the  accused  had  requested  him  to  apply  to  the  department  for  the 
report,  which  was  on  the  twenty-seventh  instant,  he  had  written  for  the  papers,  and  they  would  probably  be 
received  to-morrow  or  next  day. 

The  court  is  now  cleared  for  deliberation,  and  the  court  being  reopened,  the  accused,  with  his  counsel, 
and  the  witness,  are  readmitted. 

The  judge  advocate  informs  the  acciased  that  the  court  decide  that  the  question  cannot  be  put. 

The  judge  advocate  here  read  to  the  witness  the  charges  and  specifications  agaiust  the  accused. 

Question  by  the  judge  advocate.  Have  you  stated  everything  within  your  knowledge  and  recollection, 
fully  and  in  detail,  in  relation  to  the  charges  and  specifications  preferred  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  against  the  accused,  and  just  read  to  you? 

Answer.  I have,  sir. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness,  Charles  S.  Boggs,  as  above  recorded,  is  here  read  over  to  him,  and  approved 
by  him  as  correct. 

The  witness  now  retired. 

The  accused  now  states  that  Mr.  George  Mitchell,  shipping  merchant  of  New  York,  and  Captain  George 
R.  Sckenck,  formerly  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  with  whom  the  accused  had  sailed  in  the  merchant 
service  for  several  years  as  first  officer,  had  been  summoned  to  testify  as  to  his  character;  but  that  they  were 
not  now  in  attendance,  as  it  was  expected  that  the  court  would  be  more  than  occupied  this  morning 
with  the  examination  of  Surgeon  Parke,  of  the  Victoria,  who  had  also  been  summoned,  but  a letter  and 
telegraphic  despatch  had  been  received  by  the  judge  advocate  from  the  brother  of  Surgeon  Parke,  stating  that 
he  was  too  ill  to  attend  in  person ; that  as  the  case  had  already  occupied  so  much  time,  he  was  willing  to  close 
the  testimony  for  the  defence  at  this  point,  with  the  exception  of  some  documentary  evidence,  provided  that 
the  judge  advocate  will  admit  that  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Captain  Schenck,  if  examined,  will  prove  the  good 
character  of  the  accused  as  an  officer,  and  would  consent  that,  should  Surgeon  Parke  recover  so  as  to  enable 
him  to  be  present  at  any  time  before  the  defence  of  the  accused  was  read,  his  evidence  might  be  taken. 

The  judge  advocate  thereupon  admits  of  record  that  if  Mr.  George  Mitchell  and  Captain  George  R. 
Schenck  were  produced  as  witnesses,  they  would  testify  that  the  character  of  the  accused  as  an  officer  was 
good. 

The  judge  advocate  further  agrees  of  record  that  Surgeon  Parke  may  be  examined  as  a witness  by  the 
accused  at  any  time  before  he  is  prepared  to  read  his  defence. 

The  accused  now  calls  upon  the  judge  advocate  to  produce  all  originals  or  copies  which  are  in  his 
possession,  or  under  his  control,  of  the  correspondence  between  the  representative  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  at 
Washington,  the  Department  of  State,  and  the  Navy  Department,  respectively,  in  reference  to  the  case  of 
James  O’Neill,  for  the  shooting  of  whom  the  accused  is  now  on  trial. 

To  which  call  the  judge  advocate  replies  by  producing  the  papers,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  annexed, 
marked  numbers  one  to  four,  inclusive. 

The  accused  now  offers  the  said  papers  in  evidence  as  follows,  to  wit: 

No.  1.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  May  6,  1S64. 

No.  2.  Copy  of  a letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  April  27,  1864. 


54 


No.  3.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  June  21,  1864. 

No.  4.  Letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  June  L 3,  1864. 

The  judge  advocate  objects  to  the  admission  of  these  papers  as  irrelevant  to  the  matter  at  issue,  hut  at 
the  same  time  states  that  if  the  accused  considers  them  material  to  his  defence,  in  any  way,  the  objection  shall 
not  be  pressed  to  the  exclusion  of  the  evidence  offered. 

The  accused  states  that  he  considers  them  material  in  this — that  he  proposes  to  follow  them  up  by  putting 
in  evidence  the  official  reports  of  the  occurrence  made  to  the  department,  which  will  show  that  the  depart- 
ment and  the  senior  officer  of  the  fleet  approved  the  action  of  the  accused  at  the  time,  and  these  papers  will 
show  that  the  department  was  willing  to  accede  to  the  suggestion  of  Lord  Lyons  for  a further  investigation, 
and  consequently  ordered  the  present  trial. 

The  papers  are  now  admitted  in  evidence  by  the  court,  and  read  by  the  judge  advocate.  (See  copies 
annexed,  marked  Nos.  1 to  4.) 

The  accused  states  that  the  testimony  for  the  defence  is  now  closed,  with  the  exception  of  the  official 
report  of  Captain  Boggs  to  the  Navy  Department  or  to  Rear  Admiral-Lee,  at  or  about  the  time  of  the  occur- 
rence, and,  possibly,  of  some  further  portions  of  the  diplomatic  correspondence  which  have  been  sent  for  by 
the  judge  advocate  to  Washington. 

The  judge  advocate  thereupon  consents  that  if  the  documents  in  question  are  received  at  any  time  before 
the  accused  is  ready  to  read  his  defence,  they  may  be  offered  and  considered  as  in  evidence. 

And  the  president  of  the  court  thereupon  asks  the  accused  if  he  is  ready,  with  the  admissions  and  agree- 
ments which  have  been  made  on  the  record,  to  present  his  defence  ; to  which  he  replies  by  requesting  until 
Monday  next  to  prepare  his  defence,  which  request  is  granted  by  the  court. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Friday,  September  the  thirtieth,  at  half  past  ten 
o’clock  in  the  morning. 

THIRTEENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Friday,  September  30,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  by  the  judge  advocate,  found  to  be  correct,  and 
approved. 

The  accused  not  being  ready  to  present  his  defence,  and  there  being  no  further  business  before  the  court, 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Saturday,  October  the  first,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

FOURTEENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Saturday,  October  1,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read  by  the  judge  advocate,  found  to  be  correct,  and 
approved. 

The  accused  not  being  ready  to  present  his  defence,  and  there  being  no  further  business  before  the  court, 

The  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  Monday,  October  the  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty -four,  at  half 
past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


FIFTEENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Monday,  October  3,  1S64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  Saturday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  on  Thursday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  with  his  counsel,  were  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  Saturday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  judge  advocate,  in  further  answer  to  the  call  made  upon  him  by  the  accused,  on  Thursday  last,  for 


the  production  of  certain  papers,  now  produces  the  papers,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  annexed,  marked 
numbers  five  to  fifteen,  both  inclusive,  received  by  him  since  the  adjournment  of  the  court  on  Thursday. 

The  accused  now  offers  in  evidence  the  following  of  said  papers,  to  wit : 

No.  7.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  December  29,  1S63,  with 
enclosirres,  as  follows : 

No.  7 [a.)  Despatch  No.  891,  from  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated 
October  17,  1S63. 

No.  7 (b.)  Report  from  Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs  to  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee,  dated  March  21 
1S63. 

No.  7 (c.)  Report  from  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Edward  Hooker  to  Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs,  dated 
March  22,  1863. 

No.  7 ( d .)  Report  from  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson  to  Acting  Volunteer  Edward  Hooker,  dated 
March  22,  1S63. 

No.  7 (e.)  Report  from  Acting  Assistant  Surgeon  J.  G.  Parke  to  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  Edward 
Hooker,  dated  March  22,  1863. 

No.  7 (f.)  Report  from  Surgeon  John  S.  Kitchen  to  Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs,  dated  March  22,  1S63. 

No.  7 ( g .)  Despatch  No.  9S9,  from  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated 
December  7,  1S63. 

No.  (8.)  Copy  of  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  January  11,  1864,  enclosing 
copy  of  No.  7,  with  enclosures. 

No.  9.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  February  3,  1864, 
enclosing  No.  10. 

No.  10.  Copy  of  letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  January  19,  1S64. 

No.  11.  Letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  April  5,  1864. 

No.  12.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  June  24,  IS, '4. 

No.  13.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  June  27,  1864. 

No.  14.  Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  July  12, 1S64,  enclosing 
No.  IS. 

No.  15.  Copy  of  letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  July  7,  1864. 

All  which  papers  are  admitted  by  the  court  in  evidence,  under  the  same  objection  and  waiver  by  the  judge 
advocate  as  made  to  the  letters  offered  and  read  in  evidence  on  behalf  of  the  accused,  on  Thursday. 

The  papers  are  accordingly  now  read  by  the  judge  advocate. 

See  copies  of  the  same  hereto  annexed,  marked,  respectively,  Nos.  7,  7 a,  7 b,  7 c,  7 d,  7 e,  If,  7 g,  and 
8 to  15  inclusive. 

The  judge  advocate  thereupon  offers  in  evidence,  to  complete  the  correspondence,  the  following  papers, 
to  wit : 

No.  5.  Letter  from  Lord  Lyons  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  November  30,  1S63,  with  papers  annexed, 
as  follows: 

No.  5 (a.)  Copy  of  letter  from  the  British  consul  at  New  York  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  November  21,  1863. 

No.  5 (4.)  Copy  of  affidavit  of  James  O’Neill,  made  before  the  British  consul  at  New  York,  November 
20,  1863. 

No.  6.  Copy  of  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  December  1,  IS63, 
enclosing  copy  of  No.  5,  and  of  the  papers  annexed,  aud  also  despatch  No.  348,  from  Rear-Admiral  S.  P. 
Lee  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  dated  March  30,  1863,  referred  to  in  Rear-Admiral  Lee’s  despatch  No. 
S91,  numbered  above  No.  7 (a.)  (See  copy  annexed,  marked  No.  16.) 

The  said  papers  are  thereupon  admitted  in  evidence  by  the  court,  and  read  by  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  states  that,  owing  to  the  severe  indisposition  of  his  counsel  on  Saturday,  he  has  been  unable 
to  prepare  his  defence,  and  asks  that  he  may  be  allowed  until  to-morrow  (Tuesday)  morning  to  complete  its 
preparation,  which  request  is  granted  by  the  court. 

And  thereupon  the  court  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  October  the  fourth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


56 


SIXTEENTH  DAY. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Tuesday,  October  4,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  was  also  present. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  accused  now  offers  in  evidence  a certified  copy  of  his  report,  dated  December  the  eighteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy;  which  report  is  one  of  the  papers  enclosed 
in  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  December  twenty-ninth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  read  in  evidence  yesterday,  and  a copy  of  which  report  had,  it  appeared, 
been  omitted  to  be  sent  to  the  judge  advocate  with  the  letter.  This  is  the  report,  a copy  of  which  is  the 
paper  referred  to  as  enclosure  No.  8,  in  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Lord  Lyons,  dated  January 
the  eleventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four. 

The  court  thereupon  admit  the  said  paper  in  evidence,  as  necessary  to  complete  the  correspondence 
already  given  in  evidence,  and  the  same  is  read  by  the  judge  advocate. 

(See  the  certified  copy  annexed,  marked  No.  17.) 

The  judge  advocate  states  that  he  has  received  a note  from  the  counsel  of  the  accused  that  he  has  been 
unable  to  complete  the  defence,  owing  to  continued  indisposition,  and  asking  to  be  allowed  until  to-morrow. 

The  court  thereupon  accede  to  the  request ; but  state  that  they  will  expect  the  case  to  be  proceeded  with 
to-morrow  without  fail,  and  direct  the  judge  advocate  so  to  inform  the  counsel  for  the  accused. 

The  court  further  order  the  note  from  the  counsel,  received  by  the  judge  advocate,  with  his  reply  thereto, 
to  be  entered  upon  the  record,  and  the  same  are,  in  words  and  figures,  as  follows,  to  wit : 


“Pierrepont  House,  Tuesday  Morning. 

“My  Dear  Sir:  I was  unable  to  finish  Mr.  Everson's  defence  yesterday,  in  consequence  of  another 
severe  attack  of  neuralgia,  which  affected  my  eyes  so  I could  not  write.  I have,  however,  nearly  finished  it 
this  morning,  but  not  quite.  I am  compelled  to  ask  for  time  until  to-morrow,  when  I will  certainly  read  it, 
or,  if  unable  myself,  have  Mr.  Everson  do  so  himself. 

“ Very  truly  yours, 

“JAMES  B.  CRAIG. 


“ S.  C.  Perkins,  Esq., 

“ Judge  Advocate.” 


“Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

“ October  4,  1864 — Tuesday. 

“ My  Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  morning,  I have  to  say  that  the  court  have  acceded  to  the 
request  of  the  accused  for  further  time,  on  the  ground  of  your  continued  indisposition,  but  they  will  expect 
that  the  case  be  proceeded  with  to-morrow,  without  fail,  as  intimated  in  your  note.  The  court  adjourned  to 
meet  at  the  usual  hour  to-morrow. 

“ Very  respectfully,  yours, 

“ SAMUEL  C.  PERKINS,  Judge  Advocate. 

“ James  B.  Craig,  Esq, 

“ Counsel  for  Alfred  Everson,  Acting  Master  U.  S.  A7.” 

The  original  of  the  note  from  counsel  to  the  judge  advocate  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  No.  18. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  October  the  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-four,  at  half  past  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

SEVENTEENTH  DAY. 


Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Wednesday,  October  5,  1S64. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  accused  with  his  counsel  were  also  present. 


57 


The  record  of  the  procedings  of  yesterday  is  read  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

The  accused  now  offers  in  evidence  his  application,  dated  the  thirtieth  day  of  July,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-four,  for  promotion,  with  the  recommendation  thereof  of  Captain  B.  F.  Sands,  his  senior 
officer,  which  is  admitted  in  evidence  by  the  court,  and  read  by  the  judge  advocate. 

(See  copy  of  the  same  with  indorsements,  hereto  annexed,  marked  No.  19.) 

The  evidence  for  the  defence  is  here  closed. 

The  judge  advocate  states  that  he  has  no  further  evidence  to  offer. 

The  evidence  on  both  sides  is  now  closed. 

The  president  of  the  court  now  inquires  of  the  accused  if  he  is  prepared  to  submit  his  defence,  to  which 
he  replies  in  the  affirmative,  and  presents  the  written  paper  hereto  annexed,  marked  No.  20,  which,  by  the 
permission  of  the  court,  is  read  by  the  counsel  of  the  accused. 

The  judge  advocate  states  that  he  has  no  desire  to  present  or  reply  to  the  defence  submitted  by  the 
accused. 

The  statements  of  the  parties  being  thus  in  possession  of  the  court,  the  court  is  cleared  for  deliberation, 
and  having  maturely  considered  all  the  evidence  adduced,  and  also  what  the  accused  has  urged  by  way  of 
his  defence,  the  court  do  find  as  follows,  to  wit : 

That  the  specification  of  the  first  charge  is  proven. 

That  of  the  first  charge,  to  wit,  assault  with  intent  to  kill,  the  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson, 
is  guilty. 

That  the  specification  of  the  second  charge  is  proven. 

That  of  the  second  charge,  to  wit,  maltreatment  and  cruelty,  the  accused,  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson, 
is  guilty. 

And  the  court  thereupon  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  October  six,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
four,  at  half  past  ten  oYlock  a.  m. 

EIGHTEENTH  DAY 

Navy  Yard,  New  York, 

Thursday,  October  6,  1864. 

The  court  met  this  morning  pursuant  to  the  adjournment  of  yesterday. 

Present,  members  of  the  court  as  yesterday,  together  with  the  judge  advocate. 

The  court  is  now  cleared  and  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday  is  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and 
approved. 

The  court  having,  as  recorded  in  the  proceedings  of  yesterday,  found  Acting  Master  Everson  guilty  of 
both  of  the  charges  prepared  against  him  by  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  to  wit,  assault  with 
intent  to  kill,  and  maltreatment  and  cruelty,  do  adjudge  and  sentence  the  said  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson 
to  be  confined  in  such  prison  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  may  designate  for  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 
approval  of  this  sentence ; to  be  deprived  of  his  pay  during  that  period,  except  so  much  thereof  as  may  be 
necessary  for  his  clothing  and  subsistence;  and  at  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  imprisonment  to  be  dismissed 
from  the  navy. 

SAMUEL  L.  BREESE,  Rear-Admiral. 

W.  C.  NICHOLSON,  Commodore. 

HENRY  EAGLE,  Commodore. 

JAMES  GLYNN,  Captain. 

J.  A.  DOYLE,  Lieutenant. 

BAYSE  N.  WESTCOTT,  Lieutenant. 

Samuel  C.  Perkins, 

Judge  Advocate. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  to-day  is  now  read,  found  to  be  correct,  and  approved. 

And  thereupon  the  court  proceed  to  sign  their  finding  and  sentence  as  above  recorded,  as  well  as  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  case,  and  the  same  is  accordingly  signed  by  the  president  and  members  of 
the  court  and  by  the  judge  advocate. 

And  the  judge  advocate  thereupon,  in  the  presence  and  by  the  direction  of  the  court,  seals  up  the  record 
of  the  proceedings,  and  addresses  the  same  to  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

SAMUEL  C.  PERRINS, 

8 Judge  Advocate. 


APPENDIX 


Charges  and  specifications  of  charges  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  against  Alfred  Everson,  an 

acting  master  in  the  navy. 

Charge  I.  Assault  with  intent  to  kill.  Specification. — In  this:  that  on  or  about  the  twenty- 
first  clay  of  March,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  on  hoard  the  captured  steamer  “Nicholas  I,” 
off  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson  assaulted  James  O’Neill,  a fireman 
on  hoard  the  said  vessel,  and  without  just  cause  fired  a pistol  loaded  with  powder  and  hall  at  the  said  O’Neill, 
with  intent  to  kill  him. 

Charge  II.  Maltreatment  and  cruelty.  Specification. — In  this  : that  on  or  about  the  twenty- 
first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three,  on  board  the  captured  steamer  “Nicholas  I,” 
off  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson  intentionally  and  without  just  cause 
fired  a pistol  loaded  with  powder  and  ball  at  James  O’Neill,  one  of  the  crew  of  the  captured  vessel,  thereby 
severely  wounding  the  said  O’Neill. 

GIDEON  WELLES, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Navy  Department, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  July  22,  1864. 

Received  at  269  Washington  street,  September  14,  1864. — Dated 


To  Hear- Admiral  Breese,  Pres’t  Court  Martial : 
Adjourn  court  till  Monday  next. 


Washington,  September  14,  1S64. 


GIDEON  WELLES, 

Sec' y of  the  Navy. 


“C”— S.  C.  P. 

At  a stated  term  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  southern  district  of  New 
York,  held  at  the  United  States  court-rooms  in  the  city  of  New  Yo’k,  on  Wednesday,  the  13th  day  of  May, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-tliree. 

Present : the  honorable  Samuel  R.  Betts,  district  judge. 


The  United  States 

I 

vs. 

The  Steamer  Nicholas  1st,  her  tackle,  &c.,  and  cargo,  j 

This  cause  having  been  heard  on  the  libel,  and  proofs  and  testimony  taken  in  preparatorio,  no  claim 
having  been  interposed,  and  the  default  of  all  parties  having  been  taken  in  open  court,  and  due  deliberation 
being  had  in  the  premises,  now,  on  motion  of  E.  Delafield  Smith,  attorney  of  the  United  States,  it  is  ordered, 
adjudged,  and  decreed  by  the  court,  that  the  steamer  Nicholas  1st,  her  tackle,  &c.,  and  cargo  , be  condemned 
and  forfeited  to  the  United  States,  on  the  ground  that  the  said  captured  property  is  lawful  prize  of  war. 

And  it  is  further  ordered,  adjudged,  and  decreed,  that  the  costs  and  disbursements  herein  be  adjusted 
and  paid  according  to  law;  and  that  the  clerk  of  this  court  issue  a writ  of  venditioni  exponas,  directed  to  the 
marshal  of  the  district,  returnable  on  the  second  day  of  June,  1863,  against  the  said  vessel  and  cargo. 

That  before  the  sale  by  the  marshal  under  the  venditioni  exponas  so  ordered,  the  said  steamer  Nicholas 
1st,  her  tackle,  &c.,  engines  and  boilers,  and  cargo,  be  appraised  by  the  prize  commissioners,  and  by  experts 
to  be  by  them  named,  and  that  such  appraisement  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  this  court. 

That  said  writ  of  venditioni  exponas  be  executed  by  the  marshal,  under  the  superintendence  and  direc- 
tion of  the  prize  commissioners.  That  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  be  forthwith  deposited  by  the  marshal  as 


60 


required  by  law,  and  that  he  make  a full  and  complete  return  of  the  said  writ  into  the  registry  of  the  court, 
specifying  the  amount  received  for  each  article  sold,  and  of  his  deposit  aforesaid.  That  the  prize  commis- 
sioners shall  proceed,  under  the  direction  of  the  court,  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  entry  of  this  decree,  to 
take  the  requisite  evidence,  and  report  the  same  to  the  court,  to  the  end  that  a final  decree  may  be  made 
herein,  determining  what  public  ships  of  the  United  States  are  entitled  to  share  in  the  prize,  and  whether  the 
prize  was  of  superior,  equal,  or  inferior  force  to  the  vessel  or  vessels  making  the  capture. 

SAML.  R.  BETTS.  [seal.J 

A true  copy : 


GEO.  P.  BETTS,  Clerk. 


[Indorsement  ] 

17,492.  U.  S.  district  court.  The  United  States  of  America  vs.  the  steamer  Nicholas  I,  her  tackle, 
&c.,  and  cargo.  Certified  copy— final  decree  of  condemnation.  E.  Delafield  Smith,  U.  S.  district  attorney. 
Service  of  a copy  of  the  within  decree  is  hereby  admitted.  New  York,  , 186  . 

Filed  13th  May,  1863. 


No.  1. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  6,  1864. 

Sir:  Referring  to  my  communication  of  this  date,  which  relates,  among  other  cases,  to  that  of  James 
O’Neill,  a British  subject,  who  was  wounded  by  being  shot  on  board  the  prize  steamer  Nicholas  I,  by  a lieu- 
tenant from  the  United  States  gunboat  “ Victoria,”  who  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  prize,  which  case  was 
the  subject  of  my  communication  to  you  of  the  1st  of  December  last,  and  of  subsequent  correspondence,  I 
have  now  the  honor  to  enclose  a copy  of  a note  of  the  27th  instant  from  Lord  Lyons,  repeating  the  request  on 
behalf  of  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  government,  that  the  officer  who  shot  O’Neill  maybe  brought  to  trial.  Sup- 
posing that  any  municipal  court  had  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  it  is  believed  that  the  British  government  would 
have  no  right  to  expect  a trial  of  the  officer  for  assault  with  intent  to  kill.  As  no  such  jurisdiction  exists, 
however,  a similar  trial  by  a naval  court  seems  to  be  necessary  for  the  ends  of  justice. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


The  Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


No.  2. 

Washington,  April  27,  1S64. 

Sir  : In  the  note  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  address  to  me  on  the  6th  instant,  in  answer  to  a note 
dated  the  day  before,  in  which  I had  communicated  to  you  the  views  of  her  Majesty’s  government  respecting 
the  detention  by  the  United  States  authorities  of  British  subjects  captured  on  board  neutral  vessels,  you 
limited  yourself,  for  the  time,  to  a reference  to  the  case  of  Patrick  Hamilton  only.  I desire  now  to  recall  to 
your  recollection  the  case  of  James  O’Neill,  and  to  press  upon  your  attention  the  request  which  I made  in 
the  name  of  her  Majesty’s  government,  that  the  United  States  officer  who  wounded  this  British  subject  might 
be  brought  to  trial. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 


The  Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Sfc. 


61 


No.  3. 

Department  op  State, 

Washington,  June  21,  1S64. 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  enclose  a copy  of  a note  of  the  13tli  instant  from  Lord  Lyons,  relative  to  the 
case  of  James  O’Neill,  and  urging  that  a trial  of  the  naval  officer  who  wounded  O’Neill  on  board  the 
prize  vessel  Nicholas  I may  he  ordered.  I will  thank  yoir  for  your  views  upon  the  subject.  My  last  com- 
munication to  you  in  relation  to  the  matter  was  that  of  the  6tli  ultimo. 

I have  the  honor  to  he,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD, 

The  Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


No.  4 

Washington,  June  13,  1S64. 

Sir  : In  a note  which  I had  the  honor  to  address  to  you  on  the  5th  April  last,  hy  command  of  her 
Majesty’s  government,  I urged  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  bring  to  trial  the  officer  who  wounded 
James  O’Neill  on  board  the  prize  vessel  Nicholas  I,  in  the  month  of  March,  1863.  In  a note  dated  the  27th 
of  April  last  I pressed  this  matter  upon  your  recollection,  and  in  a note  dated  the  6th  ultimo  you  were  so 
good  as  to  inform  me  that  you  had  communicated  copies  of  my  notes  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Not  having  had  the  honor  to  l'eceive  any  further  communication  from  you  on  the  subject,  I have  now,  in 
obedience  to  instructions  which  I have  received  from  her  Majesty’s  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  state  to  you  that  her  Majesty’s  government  having  carefully  considered  the  information  which  has 
been  laid  before  them,  regard  this  case  as  one  of  great  injustice  and  cruelty. 

O’Neill  was  captured  on  board  a British  vessel,  and  was  severely  wounded  by  a United  States  officer; 
he  was  imprisoned  without  (so  far  as  her  Majesty’s  government  can  see)  any  reasonable  ground,  and  placed 
in  irons  as  a malefactor.  At  last,  after  an  incarceration  of  seven  months,  he  was  released,  with  an  intimation 
that  he  deserved  to  be  dealt  with  as  a belligerent  or  a pirate. 

The  justification  offered  to  this  treatment  of  O’Neill  is  the  statement  that  he  attempted  to  set  fire  to  a 
quantity  of  gunpowder,  and  destroy  himself  and  all  on  board  the  prize  vessel.  This  story  appears  to  her 
Majesty’s  government  to  be  in  itself  grossly  improbable  ; it  is  denied  on  oath  by  the  man  himself,  and  is  sup- 
ported solely  by  the  assertion  of  the  United  States  officer,  who  is  the  person  guilty  of  inflicting  the  wounds, 
and  who  has  therefore  the  strongest  motive  for  exonerating  himself  from  the  charge  of  cruel  violence. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  have  accordingly  instructed  me  to  express  to  you  the  great  pain  felt  by  them 
at  the  manner  in  which  this  grievous  bodily  injury  inflicted  upon  one  of  her  Majesty’s  subjects  has  been 
treated  by  the  authorities  of  the  United  States. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  understand  upon  what  principle  of  reason  or  justice  the  unsupported 
assertion  of  the  person  charged  with  the  commission  of  a crime  is  to  be  accepted,  without  trial  or  investigation, 
as  a sufficient  exculpation  of  himself  from  that  crime. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  satisfied,  upon  the  evidence  laid  before  them,  that  no  magistrate  or  court 
of  justice  could  come  to  the  conclusion  that  O’Neill  ever  attempted  or  intended  to  do  the  act  which,  it  is 
alleged,  justified  the  United  States  officer;  and  they  consider  the  case  to  be  one  which  calls  for  a full  and 
searching  investigation  into  all  its  circumstances  by  a proper  tribunal. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  feel  assured  that  the  United  States  government  will  be  as  ready  to  do  justice 
in  the  case  of  an  alleged  attempt  to  murder  by  one  of  its  officers  as  her  Majesty’s  government  would  be,  if 
the  circumstances  were  reversed.  And  her  Majesty’s  government  are  convinced  that  if  it  should  turn  out 
that  O’Neill  has  been  unjustly  wounded,  unjustly  charged,  and  unjustly  imprisoned,  the  United  States  govern- 
ment will  be  as  anxious  as  the  government  of  her  Majesty  would  be  in  a similar  case  to  make  every  repara- 
tion in  its  power. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 


The  Hon.  W.  H.  Seward,  Sfc.,  fyc.,  Sfc. 


62 


No.  5. 

Washington,  November  30,  1863. 

Sir  : I have  tlie  honor  to  transmit  to  you  a copy  of  a despach  from  her  Majesty’s  consul  at  New  York, 
and  in  original  an  affidavit  made  before  him  by  James  O’Neill,  formerly  a fireman  on  board  the  captured 
steamer  Nicholas  I,  of  Dublin,  and  now  a prisoner  at  New  York. 

I need  not  do  more  than  ask  you  to  read  these  documents.  A simple  perusal  of  them  will,  I am  sure, 
lead  you  to  cause  a prompt  investigation  of  the  case  to  be  made,  and  measuies  to  be  taken  to  set  0 hteill 
immediately  at  liberty,  and  give  him  redress  for  the  grievous  wrongs  which,  if  his  statement  be  correct,  have 
been  inflicted  upon  him  by  United  States  officers. 

I beg  you  to  be  so  good  as  to  send  the  affidavit  back  to  me. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward,  Sfc.,  Sfc.,  fyc. 


No.  5 (a.) 


British  Consulate, 

New  York,  November  21,  1863. 

My  Lord  : I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  enclosed  for  your  lordship’s  information,  and  for 
such  action  as  your  lordship  may  think  fit,  an  affidavit  made  before  me  by  James  O’Neill,  late  a fireman  of  the 
steamer  Nicolai  I,  of  Dublin,  which  vessel  was  captured  by  the  United  States  gunboat  Victoria  off  Wilmington, 
North  Carolina,  on  the  21st  of  March  last,  for  breach  of  the  blockade.  In  this  affidavit  O’Neill  details  the 
circumstances  connected  with  his  having  been  shot  at  and  severely  wounded  by  a lieutenant  of  the  Victoria 
who  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  prize  vessel.  According  to  the  sworn  statement  of  O’Neill,  this  wounding 
of  him  appears  to  have  been  a reckless  and  wanton  outrage,  wholly  without  justification.  The  excuse  sub- 
sequently offered  on  the  part  of  the  lieutenant  was  the  strange  allegation  of  an  attempt  or  intention  on  the 
part  of  O’Neill  to  destroy  the  prize  vessel  by  casting  a barrel  of  gunpowder  into  the  furnace  of  her  boilers. 

After  a week  of  severe  suffering,  and  being  transferred  to  two  or  three  vessels,  O’Neill  was  sent  to  the 
hospital  at  Norfolk,  where  he  was  confined  to  his  bed  for  two  months  under  surgical  treatment.  On  becoming 
convalescent  he  was  sent  on  board  of  the  Brandywine,  United  States  steamship,  at  Fortress  Monroe,  where  he 
was  detained  a prisoner  for  five  months,  from  the  15th  of  June  to  the  13th  of  November,  when  he  was  placed 
on  board  the  transport  Newbern,  put  in  irons,  and  sent  to  this  port  under  orders  to  be  placed  in  confinement 
at  Fort  Lafayette. 

The  case  of  this  man  has  been  humanely  brought  to  my  notice  by  Mr.  Murray,  the  United  States  marshal, 
and  judging  from  the  appearance  and  demeanor  of  O’Neill,  as  well  as  from  a careful  examination  of  him 
before  taking  his  affidavit,  I can  discover  no  ground  for  discrediting’  his  statements.  It  is  not  improbable 
his  long  imprisonment  at  Fortress  Monroe  may  have  been  an  oversight ; but  if  his  relation  of  circumstances 
be  true,  he  has  suffered  a cruel  and  grievous  wrong  which,  in  justice  to  all  parties,  ought  to  be  investigated 
with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

I have,  &c., 


E.  M.  ARCHIBALD. 


The  Lord  Lyons. 


No.  5 ( b .) 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  Edward  Mortimer  Archibald,  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  consul  at  New 
York,  this  twentieth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1863,  James  O’Neill,  who,  being  duly  sworn,  deposeth  as 
follows  : 

I am  a native  of  Dublin  and  a British  subject,  of  the  age  of  forty-five  years.  I was  a fireman  on  board 
the  steamer  Nicolai  I,  which  was  captured  off  the  port  of  Wilmington  on  the  21st  of  March  last  by  the 
United  States  gunboat  Victoria.  The  prize  was  taken  charge  of  by  Lieutenant  Ivison,  of  the  Victoria,  and 


63 


a prize  crew  from  the  Victoria.  The  chief  engineer  of  the  Victoria,  Mr.  Webster,  asked  me  if  I would 
volunteer  to  work  as  fireman,  or  rather  to  continue  working  as  fireman  on  hoard  the  prize  until  she  reached 
New  York,  and  offered  a dollar  and  a half  a day.  I agreed  to  do  so,  as  did  also  my  mate,  Michael  Murphy, 
and  a coal-heaver,  and  we  all  set  to  work  to  get  up  steam.  A first-class  fireman  named,  as  I remember, 
Thomas  Gulden,  was  sent  down  to  superintend  the  attendance  on  the  boilers ; this  was  between  nine  and  ten 
o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  myself  and  my  comrades  worked  from  that  time  heartily  for  about  four  hours, 
when  the  prize  was  brought  to  anchor  off  Wilmington,  when  the  engines  were  stopped.  I then  went  to  cool 
myself  in  the  forward  hold,  where  there  was  a ventilator  from  the  deck.  In  the  bows  of  the  prize  there  were 
stowed  gunpowder  and  salt ; aft  of  these  was  the  coal,  then  the  engines,  and  abaft  of  these  the  boilers. 
After  banking  the  fires  and  cooling  myself,  I was  showing  the  first-class  fireman  above  mentioned  the  cocks 
of  the  boilers  and  donkey  engine  for  pumping,  and  on  mentioning  to  him  that  the  gunpowder  was  stowed 
forward  he  said  he  thought  it  would  be  well  to  have  a sentry  put  over  it  to  prevent  accidents.  I replied  that 
I thought  so  too,  for  that  some  of  the  prize  crew,  not  knowing  it,  might  be  smoking  there,  or  be  careless  with 
lights.  He  said  then,  “Hold  on,  I’ll  go  up  and  tell  the  lieutenant.”  I remained  there  between  the  engines 
for  about  three  minutes,  when  Gurden  returned  and  Lieutenant  Ivison  came  down  with  him.  The  fireman 
went  for  a lamp.  I got  one  from  between  the  engines  and  handed  it  to  the  fireman,  who  lighted  it.  Meantime 
the  lieutenant  had  gone  into  the  fore  hold.  A minute  or  so  alterwards  I followed  him,  the  fireman  being 
behind  me  with  the  lamp.  At  that  instant  the  lieutenant  called  out,  “No  admittance,”  and  at  the  same 
moment  discharged  his  pistol  at  me,  the  ball  of  which  passed  through  my  left  thigh,  severing  one  of  the 
arteries.  The  fireman  called  out,  “Lieutenant,  by  God,  you  have  shot  that  man.”  The  lieutenant  replied, 
“Never  mind;  it’s  all  right,  it’s  all  right.”  The  fireman  replied,  “ It  is  not  all  right,  for  that  poor  man  is  after 
working  hard  all  day  with  me,  and  he  was  the  only  man  that  was  any  use  to  me  on  board  the  ship.”  The 
lieutenant  appeared  to  me  at  the  time  to  be  intoxicated.  I fainted  from  loss  of  blood,  and  afterward  got 
on  deck,  where  I again  fainted.  The  doctor  of  the  Victoria  happened  to  be  on  board  the  prize  at  the  time 
and  attended  to  my  wound,  putting  on  a tourniquet.  I was  then  taken  on  board  the  Victoria,  where  I 
remained  five  days.  I was  then  put  on  board  the  mail  boat  Massachusetts  and  sent  to  Fortress  Monroe,  and 
was  there  transferred  to  the  City  of  Hudson  and  sent  in  her  to  Norfolk,  where  I was  put  in  the  hospital,  and 
had  my  wound,  which  by  this  time  was  very  painful,  properly  treated,  it  being  necessary  to  have  my  thigh 
cut  open  and  the  main  artery  tied.  I was  confined  in  my  bed  in  the  Norfolk  hospital  for  sixty-two  days 
before  the  surgeon  would  permit  me  to  use  my  leg.  About  six  days  afterward,  when  I could  walk  about 
a little  with  the  aid  of  a stick,  I was  sent  on  board  the  Minnesota,  and  after  five  days  was  sent  to  the  Brandy- 
wine storesliip,  at  Fortress  Monroe,  where  I was  kept  a prisoner,  being  for  the  first  two  days  after  I went  on 
board  kept  in  irons,  until  the  doctor,  who  saw  my  weakness,  had  me  taken  out  of  irons.  On  board  the 
Brandywine  I remained  a prisoner  from  the  15th  day  of  June  until  the  13th  of  November,  instant,  when  I 
was  put  on  board  the  steamer  Newbern,  being  put  in  irons  and  kept  in  irons  from  Thursday  morning  until 
Friday  afternoon  at  three  o’clock,  when  I was  landed  at  the  navy  yard,  Brooklyn,  and  taken  in  to  the 
marshal’s  office.  I am  informed  that  I am  to  be  sent  to  Fort  Lafayette.  I am  now  in  the  county  jail,  and 
have  been  permitted  by  the  marshal  to  come  to  the  consulate  in  custody  of  an  officer  to  make  my  affidavit. 

And  this  deponent  further  saith,  that  about  two  days  after  I had  been  shot,  and  was  on  board  the 
Victoria,  I heard  for  the  first  time  that  Lieutenant  Iveson’s  excuse  for  shooting  me  was  because  I had  a barrel 
of  gunpowder  in  my  hands  and  was  going  to  throw  it  into  the  furnace  to  blow  up  the  ship.  When  this  was 
mentioned,  Gurden,  the  fireman,  said  at  once  it  was  all  lies,  as  he  was  with  me  at  the  time.  At  the  time  the 
said  lieutenant  shot  me  he  was  between  me  and  the  place  where  the  gunpowder  was  stowed.  I was  merely 
following  him  towards  the  place  where  the  firemen  always  went  to  cool  themselves  and  to  get  a drink  of 
water.  I am  a married  man,  and  have  a wife  and  four  daughters  living  in  Liverpool.  I have  never  received 
a letter  from  any  of  them  since  I left  home.  I have  written  twice  to  my  wife.  I am  now  without  any  means 
whatever,  and  quite  destitute. 

his 

JAMES  x O’NEILL. 

mark. 

Sworn  before  me  by  the  said  James  O’Neill,  being  first  read  over  to  and  fully  understood  by  him. 

E.  M.  ARCHIBALD, 

II.  B.  M.  Consul. 


64 


Iso.  6, 


Department  of  State, 

Washington  December  1 , 1S63. 

Sir  r I have  the  honor  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  enclosed  copy  of  a communication  of  yesterday, 
addressed  to  this  department  by  Lord  Lyons,  relative  to  James  O’Neill,  formerly  a fireman  onboard  the  captured 
steamer  Nicolai  I,  of  Dublin,  and  now  a prisoner  at  New  York.  An  investigation  of  the  case  is  desired. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


No.  7. 


Navy  Department, 

Washington,  December  29,  1863. 

Sir  : Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  and  its  enclosure  from  Lord  Lyons,  I have  the  honor  to 
transmit  herewith  despatches  Nos.  S91  and  9S9,  from  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee,  with  the  five  letters 
accompanying  the  first-mentioned  despatch,  and  a report  dated  the  ISth  instant,  from  Acting  Master  Alfred 
Everson,  which  explain  the  circumstances  under  which  James  O’Neill,  formerly  a fireman  on  board  the  captured 
steamer  Nicolai  I was  shot,  Ms  subsequent  treatment,  and  the  reason  of  his  having  been  sent  to  Fort  Lafayette. 

The  return  of  the  despatches,  when  you  shall  have  finished  with  them,  is  requested. 

Very  respectfully,  &c., 


GIDEON  WELLES, 


Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Sec’y  of  the  Navy. 


No.-  7 (a.) 

No.  891.]  United  States  Flag-Ship  Minnesota, 

Off  Newport  News,  Va.,  October  17,  1S63. 

Sir  : In  my  number  348,  of  March  30,  1863,  in  reporting  to  the  department  the  capture  off  Wilmington 
of  the  steamer  Nicolai  I,  on  the  21st  March,  I narrated  the  circumstances  attending  the  shooting  of  James 
O’Neill,  a fireman  of  the  Nicolai  I,  by  Acting  Master  Everson,  executive  officer  of  the  Victoria,  while  the 
former  was  endeavoring  to  blow  up  that  vessel  by  putting  a keg  of  powder  into  her  furnace. 

The  enclosed  reports  from  the  commanding  executive  officer,  and  surgeon  of  the  Victoria,  and  from  the 
surgeon  of  the  Sacramento,  all  enclosed  in  a report  from  Captain  Boggs,  dated  March  21,  exhibit  the  facts 
in  the  case,  and  the  cause  and  nature  of  the  wound. 

He  was  directed  to  be  sent  to  Beaufort  hospital  for  treatment,  but  was  brought  up  in  the  Massachusetts, 
which  arrived  here  March  28,  and  was  sent  to  the  Norfolk  hospital,  whence  he  was  discharged  June  15, 
cured,  and  sent  by  me  to  Commander  Glasson,  of  the  Brandywine,  who  was  instructed  to  retain  him  as 
prisoner  until  further  orders. 

Until  James  O’Neill’s  name  appeared  on  the  Brandywine’s  last  quarterly  report  of  prisoners  I had  sup- 
posed his  case  had  been  settled.  I regret,  however,  now  to  find  that  in  the  pressure  of  other  matters  at  the 
time  of  his  discharge  from  the  hospital  here  the  fact  was  not  reported,  and  the  department  was  not  asked  for 
instructions  as  to  the  disposition  to  be  made  of  him. 

I have  just  ascertained  that  James  O’Neill  claims  to  be  a citizen  of  Dublin,  Ireland.  No  previous  report 
bad  given  me  information  regarding  his  nationality. 

As  this  case  differs  from  those  covered  by  previous  orders  of  the  department  regarding  persons  captured 
on  board  blockade  runners,  I respectfully  submit  it  for  such  disposition  as  the  department  may  direct. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

S.  P.  LEE, 

Acting  Rear-Admiral,  Commanding  North  Atlantic  Blockading  Squadron. 

Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


<55 


No.  7 (h.) 


United  States  Steamer  Sacramento, 

Off  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  March  21,  1863. 

Sir:  I enclose  for  your  information  communications  marked,  respectively,  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  detailing  tke 
circumstances  under  winch  one  of  the  crew  of  the  prize  steamer  Nicolai  I was  wounded,  and  the  surgeon’s 
report  of  his  present  condition.  I think  Acting  Master  Emmerson  would  have  been  derelict  in  his  duty  had 
he  done  less  than  he  did. 

I propose  sending  the  wounded  man  to  Beaufort  by  the  first  vessel  that  goes  for  coal,  with  directions 
to  be  placed  in  the  hospital. 

I shall  also  take  the  first  opportunity  to  send  the  prisoners  I have  on  board  (fifteen  in  number)  to  the 
storeship  Badger,  to  await  your  orders  as  to  their  disposition.  They  are  a hard  set,  and  I do  not  think  it 
prudent  to  send  so  many  north  in  the  prize. 

Very  respectfully, 


CHAS.  S.  BOGGS, 

Captain  and  Senior  Officer  present. 


Acting  Bear- Admiral  S.  P.  Lee,  U.  S.  N., 

Commanding  North  Atlantic  Blochading  Squadron. 


No.  7 (c.) 

United  States  Steamer  Victoria, 

March  22,  1S63. 

Sir  : It  is  with  sincere  regret  that  1 have  to  report  to  you  that  one  of  my  officers  was  obliged  to  use  his 
pistol  in  subduing  the  crew  of  the  steamer  captured  yesterday,  thereby  inflicting  a flesh-wound  upon  one  of 
them. 

His  report  of  the  occurrence  I enclose,  as  also  the  surgeon’s  report  of  the  case. 

The  man  is  now  on  board  my  ship  and  properly  attended. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

E.  HOOKER, 

Acting  Lieute?iant  U.  S.  N.,  Commanding  Victoria. 

C.  S.  Boggs,  Esq., 

Captain  and  Senior  Officer. 


No.  7 {d.) 


United  States  Steamer  Victoria, 

March  22,  1863. 

Sir  : On  Saturday,  March  21,  the  Nicolai,  of  Leith,  being  captured  by  the  United  States  steamer 
Victoria,  I was  sent  on  board  by  Captain  Hooker  to  take  charge  of  her.  I found  the  crew  had  got  hold  of 
the  liquor  which  was  on  board,  and  were  destroy  ing  the  cargo. 

Not  long  after  our  crew  came  on  board  it  was  reported  to  me  that  there  was  a large  quantity  of  powder 
in  the  coal-bunkers.  I rvent  below  to  examine  into  the  state  of  things,  and  discovered  one  of  the  firemen  of 
the  Nicolai  in  the  act  of  throwing  a keg  of  powder  into  the  furnace.  I ordered  him  twice  to  halt;  he  refused, 
and  continued  to  advance.  I then  drew  my  pistol  and  discharged  it  at  him ; the  ball  lodged  in  the  left  thigh 
of  the  fireman. 


Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ALFRED  IVERSON, 

Acting  Master. 


Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  U.  S.  N.  Edw’d  Hooker, 

Commanding  United  States  Steamer  Victoria. 


9 


66 


No.  7 (e.) 


United  States  Steamer  Victoria, 

Off  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  March  22,  1863. 

Sir  : In  accordance  with  your  instructions,  I beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  the  condition 
of  James  O’Neill,  fireman  on  board  the  prize  steamer  Nicolai  I. 

O’Neill  received  a pistol  shot  yesterday  in  tbe  left  tbigb,  at  about  tlie  junction  of  the  upper  and  middle 
third ; tbe  ball  passed  entirely  through  tbe  soft  parts,  avoiding  in  its  passage  tbe  shaft  of  tbe  bone  and  tbe 
main  artery. 

He  reports  himself  this  morning  free  from  pain,  and  feeling  very  comfortable. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 


J.  G.  PARKE, 


Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  E.  Hooker, 

Commanding  United  States  Steamer  Victoria. 


Acting  Assistant  Surgeon. 


No.  7 (f.) 


United  States  Steamer  Sacramento, 

Off  Wilmington,  AT.  C.,  March  22,  1863. 

Sir  : In  obedience  to  your  order  of  this  date,  I have  made  an  examination  of  James  O’Neill,  fireman  of 
tbe  prize  steamer  Nicolai  I,  at  present  on  board  tbe  United  States  steamer  Victoria.  He  has  a flesh  wound 
of  tbe  posterior  part  of  tbe  thigh  above  tbe  middle,  caused  by  a ball,  which,  entering  from  the  inner  side  of 
the  left  tbigb,  went  directly  across  tbe  limb  below  tbe  bone  and  great  vessels,  and  emerged  at  its  outer  side. 
Tbe  man  is  doing  well.  Tbe  wound  will  require  surgical  care  for  a short  time,  but  will  not  disable  tbe  patient. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


JOHN  S.  KITCHEN, 


Surgeon. 


No.  7 (g.) 


No.  989.]  United  States  Flag-Ship  Minnesota, 

Off  Neujjort  News,  Va.,  December  7,  1863. 

Sir:  In  reply  to  the  department’s  letter  of  December  4,  enclosing  papers  from  tbe  British  minister  on 
tbe  alleged  ill  treatment  of  James  O’Neill,  fireman  of  the  captured  blockade  runner  Nicolai  I,  and  requiring 
a full  report  in  tbe  case,  I beg  leave  to  refer  tbe  department  to  my  number  S91,  of  October  17,  1S63,  con- 
taining (with  its  enclosures)  all  tbe  facts  in  my  possession  on  this  subject. 

This  report  concluded  with  a request  for  instructions  as  to  tbe  disposition  of  O’Neill,  and  under  date  of 
November  4 the  department  required  that  be  be  sent  as  prisoner  to  New  York. 

I would  add  that  O’Neill,  while  in  confinement  on  board  tbe  storeship  Brandywine,  whence  there  were 
communications  twice  a day  with  tbe  flag-ship,  made  no  statements  or  complaints  regarding  bis  case,  so  far  as 
I am  informed,  to  any  officer  of  this  squadron  ; at  all  events,  none  such  reached  me  directly  or  indirectly,  and 
I trust  it  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  if  they  bad  they  would  have  met  with  prompt  attention.  This  silence 
on  bis  part,  perhaps,  implies  a consciousness  of  guilt. 

Tbe  officer  who  shot  O’Neill  is  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  of  tbe  United  States  steamer  Victoria 
now  At  Baltimore. 

Tbe  copy  of  tbe  British  minister’s  communication  of  November  30  is  herewith  returned. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

S.  P.  LEE, 


Acting  Rear-Admiral,  Commanding  North  Atlantic  Bloclcading  Squadron. 

Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C. 


67 


No.  8. 

Department  of  State, 

Washing! on,  January  11,  1864. 

My  Lord:  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  copies  of  certain  papers  which  give  the  information  askecl  for 
by  your  lordship  in  your  note  of  the  30th  of  November  last.  They  seem  to  me  to  relieve  the  case  of  the 
aggravations  which  are  given  to  it  in  the  statement  of  O’Neill,  communicated  to  me  by  your  lordship.  An 
order,  however,  has  been  given  for  his  discharge.  The  papers  referred  to  are  as  follows  : 

1.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  29th  December,  1863. 

2.  Captain  Charles  S.  Boggs  to  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee,  21st  March,  1863. 

3.  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  E.  Hooker  to  Captain  Boggs,  22d  March,  1863. 

4.  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson  or  Iverson  to  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  E.  Hooker,  22d  March,  1S63. 

5.  Surgeon  J.  G.  Parke  to  Acting  Volunteer  Lieutenant  E.  Hooker,  22d  March,  1863. 

6.  Surgeon  John  S.  Kitchen  to  Captain  Boggs,  22d  March,  1863. 

7.  Acting  Rear-Admiral  S.  P.  Lee  to  the  honorable  Gideon  Welles,  7th  December,  1863. 

8.  Acting  Master  Everson  to  the  honorable  Gideon  Welles,  ISth  December,  1S63. 

9.  Acting  Rear-Admiral  Lee  to  the  honorable  Gideon  Welles,  17th  October,  1863. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  your  lordship’s  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


No.  9. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  3,  1S64. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  enclosed  copy  of  a note  of  the  19th  ultimo, 
addressed  to  this  department  by  Lord  Lyons,  asking  for  further  explanations  concerning  the  protracted 
imprisonment  of  James  O’Neill,  formerly  a fireman  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicolai  I,  of  Dublin,  and 
I will  thank  you  to  enable  me  to  satisfy  the  inquiry. 

I have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 


Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Nary. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


No.  10. 


Washington,  January  19,  1864. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  11th  instant,  in  which  you  are  so 
good  as  to  inform  me  that  an  order  has  been  given  for  the  release  of  James  O’Neill. 

I will  refrain,  for  the  present,  from  making  any  comments  on  the  explanations  given  by  the  officer  of  the 
United  States  ship  Victoria,  by  whom  O’Neill  was  wounded.  But  I cannot  delay  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  this  man,  a British  subject,  taken  on  board  a British  ship  captured  on  suspicion  of  breach  of  blockade, 
has  already  been  detained  as  a prisoner  for  seven  months  since  his  discharge  from  the  hospital  at  Norfolk. 

It  appears  that  he  was  sent  as  a prisoner  from  the  hospital  to  the  LTnited  States  ship  Minnesota ; that 
he  was  thence  transferred  as  a prisoner  to  the  United  States  ship  Brandywine ; that  he  was  placed  for  two 
days  in  irons,  and  detained  on  board  that  vessel  for  five  months ; finally,  that  he  was  sent  as  a prisoner  to 
New  York,  to  be  confined  in  Fort  Lafayette,  under  a special  order  from  the  Navy  Department,  and  was 
during  the  passage  to  New  York  kept  in  irons. 

You  are  well  aware  that  I am  positively  instructed  by  her  Majesty’s  government  to  press  in  the  strongest 
manner  upon  the  attention  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  the  rule  that  neutrals,  found  on  board 
neutral  vessels,  are  not  in  the  category  of  prisoners  of  war ; that  they  are  not  to  be  subjected  to  indignities  ; 
that  the  authority  of  the  belligerent  over  them  extends  only  to  the  detention  of  the  witnesses  necessary  to 


establish  the  truth  of  the  case;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  belligerent  to  afford  every  reasonable  facility  for 
their  early  release.  You  will,  therefore,  at  once  understand  that,  waiving  for  the  moment  all  discussion  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  wound  was  inflicted  upon  O’Neill,  I am  bound  to  lose  no  time  in  asking  for 
further  explanations  concerning  his  protracted  imprisonment. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


No.  11. 

Washington,  April  5,  1364. 

Sir  : Her  Majesty’s  government  have  considered  very  seriously  the  correspondence  which  I have  held 
with  you  concerning  British  subjects  captured  on  board  neutral  vessels  who  have  been  detained  as  prisoners 
by  the  United  States  government,  and  they  have  given  especial  attention  to  the  notes  which  you  did  me  the 
honor  to  address  to  me  on  the  lltli,  15th,  and  29th  January  last,  as  well  as  to  the  note  dated  the  25th  January 
last,  which  I had  the  honor  to  receive  from  you  on  the  8th  of  the  following  month. 

The  first  of  these  notes  relates  specifically  to  the  case  of  James-  O’Neill,  who  was  detained  for  many 
months  as  a prisoner,  after  having  been  severely  wounded  by  an  officer  of  the  United  States  navy,  and  who 
was  during  a part  of  his  imprisonment  kept  in  irons.  Her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  admit  that  the 
injuries  inflicted  upon  this  British  subject  are  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  The  justification  offered,  namelv, 
that  large  quantities  of  gunpowder  were  mixed  up  with  the  coal,  and  that  O’Neill  was  about  to  blow  up  the 
vessel,  appears  to  her  Majesty’s  government  to  be  in  itself  incredible,  aud  to  be  unsupported  bv  evidence. 
Her  Majesty’s  government  consider  that  the  officer  who  wounded  O’Neill  ought  to  be  put  upon  his  trial  for 
the  offence,  and  they  have  directed  me  to  press  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  bring  him  to  trial 
accordingly. 

With  respect  to  the  c^ise  of  Patrick  Hamilton,  which  forms  the  subject  of  your  note  of  the  15th  January, 
her  Majesty’s  government  observe  that  the  only  defence  made  for  his  imprisonment  is  the  allegation  that  he 
was  a pilot  and  a dangerous  man,  and  one  who  had  been  constantly  engaged  in  violating  the  laws  and  regu- 
lations of  the  United  States  government;  and  her  Majesty’s  government  are  altogether  unable  to  accept  this 
justification  as  satisfactory. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  equally  unable  to  admit  the  validity  of  the  reasons  given  in  your  note  of 
the  29th  January  for  the  imprisonment  of  the  crew  of  the  Banshee. 

The  note  addressed  on  the  9th  of  March  last  by  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs  to  the  United  States  minister  in  London  will  have  already  made  you  acquainted  with  the  view  taken 
by  her  Majesty’s  government  of  the  general  question  of  the  imprisonment  of  British  subjects  captured  on 
board  blockade-running  vessels.  You  will,  therefore,  be  prepared  to  hear  that  her  Majesty’s  government  very 
much  regret  the  announcement,  made  in  your  note  to  me  of  the  25th  January,  of  its  being  the  intention  of 
the  United  States  government  to  detain  in  military  custody  all  persons  captured  in  entering  the  so-called 
confederate  lines. 

It  may  not  be  unreasonable  that,  in  cases  of  real  doubt  as  to  whether  a j ^articular  person  is  a neutral  or 
an  enemy,  time  should  be  allowed  for  necessary  investigation;  but  her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  concede 
that  a system  may  be  adopted  by  the  belligerent  towards  the  neutral  which  will  have  the  practical  effect  of 
placing  neutral  subjects  in  the  same  position  as  those  of  the  enemy. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  offer  any  further  remarks  upon  the  note  in  question, 
because  answers  have  been  already  made  by  them  on  the  several  matters  of  which  it  treats.  Thev  cannot, 
however,  refrain  from  pointing  out  that  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  admit  the  accuracy  of  the  statement  which 
it  contains  with  regard- to  the  case  of  the  Chesapeake,  nor  from  observing  that  that  statement  keeps  entirely 
out  of  view  the  unlawful  proceedings  of  the  United  States  officers. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  unwilling  to  see,  in  the  course  adopted  by  the  United  States  government, 
indications  of  a determination  to  treat  the  crews  of  prize  vessels  as  prisoners  of  war,  in  order  thereby  to  st-  -p 
the  continued  violation  of  the  blockade.  Her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  allow  that  any  exigence  of  the 
belligerent  will  warrant  him  in  departing  from  the  observance  of  his  obligations  towards  the  neutral.  In 


69 


matters  of  maritime  prize  the  relations  of  belligerent  and  neutral  are,  for  the  most  part,  clearly  established, 
aud  her  Majesty’s  government  conceive  that  they  cannot  be  disturbed  vritliout  event  danger.  The  law  of 
nations  has  not  affixed  the  penalty  of  imprisonment  to  the  offence  of  breaking  a blockade  or  of  importing  con- 
traband of  war;  and  having  regard  to  all  that  has  passed,  her  Majesty’s  government  conceive  that  they  shall 
best  manifest  their  regard  and  esteem  for  the  government  of  the  United.  States,  and  their  anxious  desire  to 
maintain  cordial  and  friendly  relations  with  that  government,  by  at  once  stating  frankly  that  they  are  not 
prepared  to  assent  to  any  alteration  of  the  law  of  nations  in  this  respect. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward,  8fc.,  Sfc.,  fyc. 


No.  12. 


Navy  Department, 

Washington,  June,  24,  1S64. 

Sir  : I have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  21st  instant,  enclosing  a copy  of  a note  from  Lord 
Lyons,  in  which  he  urges  the  “ trial  of  the  naval  officer  who  wounded  O’Neill  on  board  the  prize  vessel 
Nicolai  I.” 

In  reply  to  your  request  to  be  informed  of  the  views  of  the  department  on  the  subject,  I have  to  state 
that  the  necessity  of  the  trial  asked  for  is  acquiesced  in  only  in  deference  to  the  earnest  desire  manifested  on 
the  part  of  the  British  government. 

The  department  proposes  to  order  the  trial  of  the  officer  referred  to  by  a general  court-martial  now 
assembled  at  Philadephia ; but  before  directing  him  to  appear  before  it,  it  desires  to  know  whether  any 
particular  form  of  charge  is  considered  advisable,  and  also  whether  any  witnesses  will  he  designated  by  Lord 
Lyons,  and  if  so,  what  time  must  elapse  before  they  can  attend  at  the  place  of  trial. 

I am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


GIDEON  WELLES, 


Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Secretary  of  the  JSavy. 


No.  13. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  27,  1864. 

My  Lord  : I am  informed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  that,  in  deference  (o  the  earnest  wish  expressed 
on  behalf  of  her  Majesty’s  government  for  the  trial  of  the  naval  officer  who  wounded  O’Neill  on  board  the 
prize  vessel  Nicolai  I,  the  Navy  Department  proposes  to  order  the  trial  of  that  officer  before  a general  court- 
martial  now  assembled  at  Philadelphia.  Mr.  Welles  adds,  however,  that  it  is  desirable  to  know  whether 
any  particular  form  of  charge  against  the  officer  is  deemed  advisable;  whether  any  witnesses  will  be  designated 
on  behalf  of  O’Neill ; and  if  so,  what  time  must  elapse  before  they  can  be  present  at  the  trial. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  my  lord,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWAED. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  fyc.,  Sfc.,  life. 


No.  14. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  12,  1864. 

Sir  : Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  24th  of  last  month,  relative  to  the  proposed  trial  of  the  officer  who 
wounded  James  O’Neill  on  board  the  prize  vessel  Nicolai  I,  I have  the  honor  to  enclose  for  your  considera- 
tion a'copy  of  a note  of  the  7th  instant,  from  Lord  Lyons  on  the  subject,  and  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Nary. 


70 


No.  15. 

Washington,  July  1,  ISG4. 

Sir  : I liave  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  27th  ultimo,  in  which  you  have 
been  so  good  as  to  inform  me  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  proposes  to  order  the  trial  of  the  officer  who 
wounded  James  O’Neill,  and  that  the  Secretary  desires  to  know  whether  any  witnesses  will  be  designated  on 
behalf  of  O’Neill ; and  if  so,  what  time  must  elapse  before  they  can  be  present  at  the  trial. 

James  O’Neill  is  himself  at  New  York,  and  will  be  ready  at  any  time  to  give  his  evidence.  He  designates 
two  witnesses,  Thomas  G-anin  and  Michael  Murphy.  Thomas  Ganin  was  chief  fireman  of  the  United  States 
ship  Victoria,  and  was  transferred  to  the  Nicolai  I when  the  latter  vessel  was  captured.  It  mil  probably  be 
easy  for  the  Navy  Department  to  secure  his  attendance.  Michael  Murphy  was  a fireman  of  the  Nicolai  I. 
O’Neill  has  given  the  address  of  this  man  in  England,  and  I will  write  to-morrow  to  ascertain  whether  he 
can  be  found  and  sent  over  to  appear  at  the  trial.  I shall  probably  receive  an  answer  in  about  a month 
from  this  time.  I trust  that  the  delay  will  not  be  productive  of  inconvenience. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward,  §c.,  fyc.,  8fc. 


No.  16. 


No.  348.]  United  States  Flag-Ship  Minnesota, 

Off  Newport  News,  Vu.,  March  30,  18G3. 

Sir  : I have  received  reports,  dated  the  21st  instant,  from  the  commanding  officers  of  the  United  States 
steamer  Victoria  and  schooner  Wm.  Bacon,  detailing'  the  circumstances  of  the  capture  of  the  English 
steamer  Nicolai  I,  from  Nassau,  N.  P.,  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  instant. 

The  schooner  was  receiving  water  from  the  Victoria,  at  Little  river,  North  Carolina,  the  weather  being 
thick  and  rainy,  when  a large  steamer  without  masts  was  discovered, under  the  land  to  the  westward,  in  shoal 
water.  Both  vessels  at  once  got  under  way  and  gave  chase.  In  about  half  an  hour  the  Victoria  got  within 
range,  and  after  half  a dozen  shots  the  stranger  hoisted  English  colors,  rounded  to,  and  was  at  once  boarded 
by  a boat’s  crew  from  the  Victoria.  The  captain  stated  that  he  had  thrown  overboard  all  her  papers  except 
the  register,  which  was  found ; he  also  stated  that  he  attempted  to  enter  Charleston  on  the  night  of  the  19th, 
but  was  driven  away.  She  is  said  to  be  loaded  with  dry  goods,  arms,  ammunition,  &c. 

I learn  further,  from  reports  enclosed  to  me  by  Captain  Boggs,  commanding  the  Sacramento,  under  date 
of  March  21,  that  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson,  of  the  Victoria,  on  taking  possession  of  the  prize,  found  the 
crew  excited  by  liquor,  and  destroying  the  cargo,  and  on  going  below  discovered  one  of  the  firemen  of  the 
Nicolai  I in  the  act  of  throwing  a keg  of  powder  into  the  furnace  ; after  having  been  twice  ordered  to  halt, 
Mr . Everson  discharged  his  pistol  at  him,  the  shot  taking  effect  in  the  man’s  thigh.  He  was  sent  to  the 
hospital  at  Beaufort,  and  is  reported  by  the  surgeon  as  doing  well,  and  only  likely  to  be  confined  for  a short 
time. 


The  Nicolai  I left  Beaufort,  whither  she  had  been  sent  for  coal,  on  the  26th  instant  for  New  York. 

I informed  the  department  in  my  No.  340,  of  the  28th  instant,  that  twenty-six  (26)  of  the  original  crew  of 
the  prize  arrived  here  in  the  Massachusetts,  and  were  sent  by  me  in  her  to  Philadelphia,  with  a letter  of 
advice  to  the  commandant. 

Two  of  these  were  detained  here  by  me  for  examination.  One,  Henry  Powell,  alias  Frederic  Gardner, 
says  he  is  from  Wilmington,  and  a citizen  of  New  York.  He  is  now  held  as  prisoner  on  board  the  Brandy- 
wine, and  I shall  send  him  to  Washington  by  first  opportunity  to  be  locked  up.  The  other,  Emanuel  Boberts, 
a negro,  who  says  he  is  from  Nassart,  I shall  discharge  here. 

Enclosed  is  the  crew  list  of  the  schooner  William  Bacon  present  at  the  capture.  It  was  enclosed  in  the 
report  sent  to  me.  I request  the  department  to  give  to  it  the  proper  direction. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 


S.  P.  LEE, 

Acting  Hear-  Admiral,  Commanding  North  Atlantic  Blockading  Squadron. 


Hon.  Gideon  Wells, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C. 


71 


No.  17. 


United  States  Navy  Department, 

October  3,  1864 

I hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  is  a true  copy  from  the  original  on  file  in  the  Navy  Department. 

JNO.  W.  HOGG, 

Acting  Chief  Clerk. 

Be  it  known  that  John  W.  Hogg,  whose  name  is  signed  to  the  above  certificate,  is  now,  and  was  at  the 
time  of  so  signing,  acting  chief  clerk  in  the  Navy  Department,  and  that  full  faith  and  credit  are  due  to  all  his 
official  attestations  as  such. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name,  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  Navy  Depart- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  third  day  of  October, 
[seal.]  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-four,  and  of  the  independence  of  the 
United  States  the  eighty-eighth. 

GIDEON  WELLES, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


No.  17. 

United  States  Steamer  Victoria, 

Baltimore , Md.,  December  18,  1863. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  yours  of  the  14th  instant,  requesting  me  to  furnish 
the  department  with  a full  report  of  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  alleged  harsh  treatment  and 
shooting  of  James  O’Neill. 

In  reply,  I would  inform  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Navy  that,  on  boarding  the  prize  Nicolai  1st,  I 
found  that  her  crew  were  composed  of  a most  villanous  set  of  scoundrels ; most  of  them  were  intoxicated,  and 
very  quarrelsome  and  abusive  ; and  upon  examining  the  vessel,  I discovered  large  quantities  of  powder  scat- 
tered among  the  coals,  evidently  with  the  design  of  igniting  the  cargo,  (16  tons  powder,)  which  was  stowed 
near  the  bunkers ; fearful  that  they  would  destroy  the  vessel,  I stationed  my  men  at  all  the  entrances  leading 
below,  with  orders  not  to  allow  any  of  the  crew  below  decks  ; my  duty  calling  me  below,  and  while  standing- 
near  some  kegs  of  powder,  the  fireman,  James  O’Neill,  passed  through  the  fire-room,  and  was  in  the  act  of 
taking  up  a keg  of  powder  to  throw  into  the  furnace.  I ordered  him  on  deck  ; he  refusing,  I drew  my  pistol 
and  shot  him,  the  ball  passing  through  the  fleshy  part  of  his  thigh.  I immediately  transferred  him  to  the 
Victoria,  where  he  received  surgical  attendance. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ALFRED  EVERSON, 

Acting  Master  United,  States  Navy 

Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Respectfully  forwarded. 

CHAS.  W.  LEE, 

Acting  Master  U.  S.  Navy,  Commanding  U.  S.  Steamer  Victoria. 

Forwarded  December  18th. 

THOS.  A.  DORNIN,  Commodore. 


No.  18. 

Pierpont  House,  Tuesday  morning. 

My  Dear  Sir’:  I was  unable  to  finish  Mr.  Everson’s  defence  yesterday,  in  consequence'  of  another 
severe  attack  of  neuralgia,  which  affected  my  eyes  so  I could  not  write.  I have,  however,  nearly  finished  it 
this  morning,  but  not  quite.  I am  compelled  to  ask  for  time  until  to-morrow,  when  I will  certainly  read  it , 
or  if  unable  myself,  have  Mr.  Everson  do  so  himself. 

Very  truly,  yours, 


JAMES  B.  CRAIG 


S.  C.  Perkins,  Esq., 

Judge  Advocate. 


72 


No.  19. 

United  States  Steamer  Victoria, 

Off  Western  Bar,  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  July  30,  1864. 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  say,  that  having  received  my  appointment  as  acting  master  in  the  United 
States  navy,  dated  December  3,  1861,  and  since  that  time  having  faithfully  served  in  this  squadron,  I would 
most  respectfully  request  to  be  promoted  to  the  rank  of  acting  volunteer  lieutenant. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ALFRED  EVERSON, 

Acting  Master,  Commanding  United  States  Stea.mer  Victoria. 

Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Acting  Master  Everson  has  faithfully  served  on  this  part  of  the  blockade  since  I have  been  senior  officer, 
for  nearly  two  years,  first  as  executive  officer  of  the  vessel  he  now  commands,  and  was  recommended  for  the 
command  by  her  former  commanding  officer.  He  behaved  gallantly  in  running  the  blockade-runner  Georgiana 
Magaw  under  the  guns  of  Fort  Fisher  last  June. 

I know  him  to  be  an  energetic  and  zealous  officer,  and  cheerfully  recommend  him  for  promotion. 

Very  respectfully,  &c., 


B.  F.  SANDS, 

Captain  U.  S.  N.,  and  Commanding  Division  off  Western  Bar. 


[Indorsement.] 


July  30. 

Acting  Master  A.  Everson,  (Victoria,)  application  for  promotion  to  grade  of  acting  volunteer  lieutenant. 
Recommended  by  Captain  B.  F.  Sands,  senior  officer. 


August  1. 


The  applicant  is  under  charges  preferred  by  the  department. 

S.  P.  LEE, 

Acting  Rear-Admiral,  Commanding  North  Atlantic  Blockading  Squadron. 


E.  August  6.  Detail. 


August  1,  1864. 


No.  20. 

To  the  Court  : The  undersigned  has  been  arraigned  before  the  honorable  court  upon  the  following 
charges,  viz: 

Charge  I. — Assault  with  intent  to  kill. 

Specification. — In  this  : that  on  or  about  the  twenty -first  day  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-three,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- three,  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas  I,  off  the 
coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting  Master  Alfred  Everson  assaulted  James  O’Neill,  a fireman  on  board 
the  said  vessel,  and  without  justifiable  cause  fired  a pistol  loaded  with  powder  and  ball  at  the  said  O’Neill 
with  intent  to  kill  him. 

Charge  II. — Maltreatment  and  cruelty. 

Specification. — In  this  : that  on  or  about  the  twenty-first  day  of  March,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-three,  on  board  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas  I,  off  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  the  said  Acting 
Master  Alfred  Everson  intentionally  and  without  just  cause  fired  a pistol  loaded  with  powder  and  ball  at 
James  O’Neill,  one  of  the  crew  of  the  captured  vessel,  thereby  severely  wounding  the  said  O’Neill. 

The  accused  desires,  in  the  first  place,  to  call  the  attention  of  this  honorable  court  to  the  nature  of  the 
charges  and  specifications.  The  charges  are  not  of  simple  assault  or  maltreatment  of  a person  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  accused.  They  are  of  “assault  with  intent  to  kill,”  and  “ maltreatment  of  a prisoner,” 
one  of  the  crew  of  the  captured  steamer  Nicholas  I,  and  being  a prisoner,  one  who,  according  to  the  laws  and 


n o 

( o 

usages  of  civilized  nations,  no  matter  whathis  offence  before  his  capture,  thereafter,  if  subordinate  and  obedient 
to  the  command  of  his  captor,  instead  of  being  assaulted  with  intent  to  kill,  or  treated  with  maltreatment  and 
cruelty,  was  entitled  to  protection  and  good  treatment  from  his  captor. 

The  charges  and  specifications  are  of  a grave  offence,  and  so  being,  the  accused,  before  entering  into  a 
review  of  the  testimony,  wishes  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  are 
made. 

They  are  charges  and  specifications  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  against  the  accused ; 
they  are  not  charges  and  specifications  'preferred  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  against  the  accused,  which 
' the  accused  understands  to  be  the  usual  form ; and  when  the  court  considers  the  nature  of  the  evidence  in  its 
possession,  and  the  correspondence  which  has  been  placed  before  it  by  the  accused,  it  is  not  hard  to  ascertain 
why  the  usual  formula  in  cases  of  court-martial  was  not  followed. 

To  the  mind  of  the  accused  the  reason  for  the  departure  is  apparent.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  had 
no  charges  to  prefer  against  the  accused  ; the  conduct  of  the  accused  in  relation  to  the  matter  for  which  he 
stands  arraigned  had  not  only  been  placed  before  the  Navy  Department  by  him,  but  by  the  officer  in  com- 
mand of  his  vessel,  by  the  senior  officer  present,  (Captain  Boggs,)  who  forwarded  the  reports  of  the  occurrence, 
and  his  opinion  thereon,  formed  not  as  the  court  will  now  be  compelled  to  form  its  opinion  from  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses,  none  of  whom,  with  the  exception  of  O’Neill,  could  have  witnessed  the  transaction;  but 
from  the  testimony  of  all  who  were  present  at  or.  could  have  any  possible  knowledge  of  the  circumstances 
attending  the  shooting,  taken  at  a time  when  the  events  were  fresh  in  their  memory,  and  by  Admiral  Lee, 
commanding  the  squadron  to  which  the  ship  of  the  accused  was  attached.  The  testimony  of  all  these  officers 
had,  as  the  court  will  perceive  from  the  correspondence,  been  placed  before  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  and  by  him  considered  as  early  as  March  the  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three.  Inasmuch 
as  no  charge  was  preferred  or  prepared  against  the  accused  at  that  time,  it  is  fair  to  presume  his  conduct  was 
approved  by  the  Navy  Department.  This  theory  is  corroborated  by  the  letter  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  dated  June  twenty-fourth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four,  marked  No.  12,  in  which  he  states 
“ the  necessity  of  the  trial  asked  for  is  acquiesced  in  only  in  deference  to  the  earnest  desire  manifested  on  the 
part  of  the  British  government .”  From  this  correspondence  it  is,  to  the  mind  of  the  accused,  perfectly 
evident  that  his  conduct  was  approved  by  every  officer  of  his  own  government  acquainted  with  the  facts* 
and  that  the  prosecution  has  been  instigated  and  is  pressed  only  by  the  British  government  at  the  request  of 
the  witness,  O’Neill.  If  this  view  be  correct,  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  accused  to  call  to  the  attention  of 
the  court  the  proved  circumstances  under  which  the  real  prosecutor  comes  into  court.  Who  is  O’Neill  ? 
What  is  he  1 He  is  proved  indisputably  to  be  a person  claiming  the  protection  and  patronage  of  the  British 
government.  Whether  he  is  a British  subject  at  all,  depends  upon  his  testimony  only.  As  to  its  reliability! 
the  accused  will  have  hereafter  occasion  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court. 

Assuming  him  to  be,  as  he  claims,  a British  subject,  can  either  he  or  his  government  come  before  your 
honorable  court,  as  prosecutors,  with  clean  hands  ? It  has  been  proved  (see  p.  36  of  the  record)  that 
he  and  Murphy,  who  was  also  a fireman  on  the  Nicholas  I before  her  capture,  received,  as  wages,  from 
Liverpool  to  Nassau,  <£3  15s.  a month  ; that  at  Nassau  they  knowingly  engaged  for  a voyage  to  run  the 
blockade,  where  they  and  all  others  of  the  crew  were  entitled  to  their  discharge  at  Nassau,  if  they  had  so 
desired,  for  the  unusual  compensation,  for  persons  of  their  class,  of  A10  a month,  and  ATO  additional  if 
successful. 

Under  these  circumstances,  how  Lord  Lyons,  or  the  British  government,  or  O’Neill  under  its  protection, 
can  pretend  to  come  before  this  court  as  prosecutors,  and  ask  conviction,  is  perhaps  reconcilable  by  them 
with  the  proclamation  of  .the  Queen  of  Great  Britain,  dated  May  thirteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
but  is  utterly  irreconcilable  to  the  mind  of  the  accused.  Under  that  proclamation,  and  the  facts  proved  on 
this  trial,  O’Neill,  the  real  prosecutor,  is  pronounced  liable  to  indictment  as  for  a misdemeanor,  and,  on 
conviction,  subject  to  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  is  declared  to  have  incurred  the  high  displeasure  of  the 
Queen.  Among  other  things,  the  proclamation  says  : “ Now,  in  order  that  none  of  our  subjects  may  unwarily 
render  themselves  liable  to  the  penalties  imposed  by  the  said  statutes,  we  do  hereby  strictly  command  that  no 
person  or  persons  whatsoever  do  commit  any  act,  matter  or  thing  whatsoever,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of 
said  statutes,  upon  pain  of  the  several  penalties  by  the  said  statutes  imposed  and  our  high  displeasure.  * * * * 


10 


74 


And  we  do  hereby  further  warn  all  our  loving  subjects,  and  all  persons  whatsoever  entitled  to  our  protec- 
tion, that  if  any  of  them  shall  presume,  in  contempt  of  this  royal  proclamation  and  of  our  high  displeasure, 
to  do  any  acts  in  derogation  of  their  duty  as  subjects  of  a national  sovereign  in  said  contest,  or  in  violation 
or  contravention  of  the  law  of  nations  in  that  behalf,  as,  for  example,  and  more  especially  * * * * * 

breaking  or  attempting  to  break  any  blockade  lawfully  established  by  or  on  behalf  of  either  of  said  con- 
tending parties  * * or  by  carrying  * * * * arms,  military  stores  or  materials,  or  any  article  or 

articles  considered  and  deemed  to  be  contraband  of  war,  according  to  the  law  or  modern  usage  of  nations,  for 
the  use  or  service  of  either  of  said  contending  parties,  all  persons  so  offending  will  he  liable  to  the  several 
penalties  * * * * in  that  behalf  imposed.  And  we  do  hereby  declare  that  all  our  subjects,  and 

persons  entitled  to  our  protection,  who  may  misconduct  themselves  in  the  premises,  will  do  so  at  their  ■peril 
and  of  their  oion  wrong  ; and  that  they  will  in  nowise  obtain  any  protection  from  us  against  any  liability  or 
consequences,  but  will,  on  the  contrary,  incur  our  high  displeasure  by  such  misconduct.” 

After  citing  the  above,  the  accused  believes  the  honorable  court  will  concur  with  him  that  the  real  pros- 
ecutor O’Neill,  is  not  without  wrong,  and,  therefore,  that  bis  testimony  is  to  be  carefully  scrutinized  before 
the  accused  shall  be  found  guilty.  And  if  it  be  found  to  be  contradictory  of  itself,  or  to  be  contradicted  by 
the  testimony  of  other  witnesses,  or  to  be  improbable  in  its  character,  it  shall  be  thrown  out  of  view  by  the 
court  in  arriving  at  its  judgment  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  of  the  charges  and  specifications 
prepared  against  him. 

After  thus  generally  calling  the  attention  of  the  court  to  tlie  preliminary  circumstances  attending  ana 
relating  to  the  trial  of  the  undersigned,  the  accused  would  here  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  facts  of 
the  case  as  proved. 

On  the  morning  of  the  twenty-first  of  March,  1863,  the  United  States  steamer  Victoria  captured  the 
English  steamer  Nicholas  I while  attempting  to  run  the  blockade  off  Wilmington.  Immediately  after  the 
capture,  the  accused,  the  executive  officer  of  the  Victoria,  was  sent  on  board  the  captured  steamer  in 
charge  of  a prize  crew  consisting  of  five  men,  two  officers,  an  engineer,  and  one  fireman,  making  in  all 
nine  men.  (See  Gurnon’s  testimony,  page  14  of  record.)  He  found  on  board  the  steamer  a crew  of  more 
than  thirty  men,  all  or  nearly  all  of  whom  were  drunk  and  disorderly.  (See  testimony  of  Gurnan, 
Sawyer,  Hooker  and  Webster,  pp.  40,  52,  of  record.)  The  captain  of  the  captured  steamer  had,  pre- 
vious to  capture,  given  his  crew  free  access  to  all  the  liquor  on  board  the  vessel.  They  had  broken 
open  and  bad  possession  of  portions  of  the  cargo ; bad  been  and  were,  shortly  after  the  vessel  was 
boarded  by  the  accused,  fighting  and  quarrelling  among  themselves  on  the  deck  and  in  the  engine 
room.  (See  testimony  of  O’Neill,  Gurnan,  Murphy,  Sawyer,  Hooker,  and  Webster.)  In  short,  they  were 
as  expressed  by  Captain  Boggs  in  his  report, to  Admiral  Lee,  “ a hard  set,”  all  intoxicated,  turbulent,  and 
indisposed  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  officers  of  the  Victoria.  (See  testimony  of  Sawyer,  Webster,  and 
Gurnan.)  Finding  the  vessel  and  crew  in  this  condition,  the  accused,  especially  as  a short  time  previous  he 
bad  been  informed  of  the  successful  attempt  of  the  crew  of  the  captured  steamer  Emily  St.  Pierre,  a valuable 
prize  captured  by  the  South  Atlantic  blockading  squadron,  to  retake  said  vessel,  was  led  to  believe,  and  did 
believe,  that  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  I would  attempt  to  recapture  or  destroy  that  vessel.  Under  these 
circumstances,  the  accused,  as  can  be  well  understood  by  a court  composed  of  officers  so  experienced  as  the 
honorable  court,  natually  felt  anxious  as  to  the  safety  of  the  vessel ; and  when,  several  hours  after  the 
capture,  it  was  reported  to  him  that  large  quantities  of  powder  had  been  found  on  board  the  Nicholas  in  the 
place  where  the  coal  was  stowed,  be  felt  more  anxious.  Therefore,  as  scon  as  tlie  fact  that  powder  was 
stowed  amongst  the  coals  was  reported  to  him,  (see  testimony  of  Gurnan,  pp.  14-26  of  record,)  the  accused 
went  below  to  ascertain  tlie  position  of  the  powder,  the  means  of  access  thereto,  and  what  precautions  were 
necessary  to  be  taken  in  order  to  render  the  prize  secure  from  recapture,  if  any  attempt  should  be  made. 
When  be  went  below  be  was  accompanied  by  the  witness,  Gurnan,  into  the  fore  hold,  where  the  powder  was 
stored.  Finding  this  hold  dimly  lighted,  he  directed  Gurnan  to  get  him  a lamp.  While  he  was  gone  in 
search  of  a lamp,  and  while  the  accused  was  standing  close  up  to  the. tiers  of  powder,  about  twenty-five  feet 
from  the  entrance,  (see  testimony  of  Webster,  page  48  of  record,)  he  saw  a man  enter  the  hold  through  the 
door  which  communicated  with  the  engine-room.  He  ordered  him  twice  to  halt,  saying,  “Don’t  you  come  in 
here.”  He  did  not  heed  the  first  order.  It  was  repeated.  He  continued  advancing,  (see  testimony  of  O'Neill, 
page  13,)  and  was  within  a few  feet  of  a loose  keg  of  powder,  half  way  between  the  accused  and  the  entrance, 
when  the  accused  drew  his  pistol  and  fired,  wounding  the  man  in  the  manner  testified  to.  At  the  time  of  the 


75 


shooting  the  accused  recognized  the  person  shot  as  a man  Engineer  Webster  had  requested  him  to  put  in 
irons,  and  whom  he  had  ordered  to  remain  on  deck. 

The  accused  admits  that  he  intended  by  the  shooting  to  prevent  the  carrying  out  by  O’Neill  of  what  he 
had  good  reason  to  suppose  was  his  intention,  viz:'  to  destroy  the  ship  by  throwing  powder  in  the  furnaces. 
At  the  time  O’Neill  was  shot  he  was  drunk,  and  his  continuing  to  advance  towards  the  accused,  after  being 
twice  ordered  to  halt,  was,  to  the  mind  of  the  accused,  evidence  that  he  intended  mischief,  and  so  rendered  the 
shooting  not  only  justifiable,  but,  in  the  opinion  of  the  accused  at  the  time,  absolutely  necessary  to  the  safety 
of  the  vessel. 

If  such  was  the  intention  of  the  witness,  O’Neill,  or,  even  if  such  were  not  his  intention,  if  the  accused 
had,  at  the  time  of  the  shooting,  reason  to  believe  that  such  was  his  intention,  he  feels  that  he  was  not  only 
justified  in  shooting  O’Neill,  but,  in  the  language  of  Captain  Boggs,  (see  paper  No.  7,)  “would  have  been 
derelict  in  his  duty  had  he  done  less  than  he  did.”  Feeling  thus,  and  being  satisfied  that  from  all  the  testi- 
mony adduced  on  this  trial,  the  court  must  acquit  the  accused  of  all  intention  to  use  unnecessary  force  in 
preventing  what  he  at  the  time  thought  was  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  O’Neill  to  destroy  or  seriously  injure 
a ship  in  charge  of  the  accused  as  prize-master,  he  relies  with  confidence  that  the  finding  of  the  court  will  be, 
of  the  specifications,  “not  proved,”  and  of  the  charges,  “not  guilty.” 

But,  inasmuch  as  the  honorable  court  are  only  aware  of  the  facts  from  the  testimony,  and  ^s,  to  the  mind 
of  the  accused,  the  testimony  inculpating  him  is  wholly  unreliable  and  contradictory,  at  the  risk  of  trespassing 
upon  the  patience  of  the  court,  already  severely  tried  by  this  protracted  trial,  he  would  most  respectfully  ask 
attention  to  the  following  : 

What  evidence  is  there  that  O’Neill’s  intention  was  not  to  destroy  or  injure  the  Nicholas  ? Only  his  own 
testimony,  corroborated,  it  is  true,  in  minor  points,  by  the  Avitnesses  Murphy  and  Gurnan.  Is  the  testimony 
of  O’Neill  reliable?  Is  it  testimony  upon  which  an  officer  of  the  na\ry  of  the  United  States  Avho,  since  the 
date  of  his  entering  the  service,  and  for  years  before,  has  been  proved  to  have  had  a good  character  as  an 
officer,  to  have  been  twice  recommended  for  promotion,  (see  letter  of  Captain  Sands,)  ought  to  be  convicted  1 
The  accused  feels  sure  the  judgment  of  the  court  will  be  in  the  negative.  In  order,  hoAvever,  that  there  may 
be  no  question  on  this  point,  the  accused  desires  to  call  attention  to  the  Avitness’s  contradiction  of  himself  and 
the  contradiction  of  other  witnesses,  more  impartial  and  disinterested  than  he,  of  facts  testified  to  by  himself 
and  others. 

First..  In  his  direct  examination  he  testified  (1)  that  he  was  on  duty  beloAv  at  the  time  of  the  shootmg  ; (2  i 
that  he  had,  immediately  preceding  the  shooting,  banked  the  fires  ; was  Amry  warm  ; and  (3)  that  he  went  into 
the  hold  Avhere  the  powder  and  coal  Avas  stowed,  to  cool  himself  under  a ventilator,  (1,)  where  he  and  others 
of  the  creAv  of  the  Nicholas  had  been  in  the  habit  of  cooling  themseNes  ; (5)  that  before  the  shooting  he  had  re- 
ceived no  orders  from  the  accused  ; (6)  that  he  was  not  drunk  or  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  the  time  of  the 
shooting,  or  at  all  during  that  day  ; (7)  that  he  had  at  no  time  refused  or  hesitated  to  obey  the  orders  of  Mr. 
Webster,  the  engineer  of  the  Victoria,  or  any  other  person  belonging  to  her ; that  there  had  been  no  drinking 
n the  engine  or  fire  rooms  on  the  day  of  the  capture  ; that  Mr.  Webster  had  not  at  any  time  threatened  to  shoot 
him  for  disobedience  of  orders ; that  Gurnan  had  not  so  threatened  to  shoot  him,  or  any  one  of  the  crew  of 
the  Nicholas  in  his  presence;  that  Mr.  Webster  had  not  had  to  shove  him  up  or  towards  the  ladder  leading 
on  deck,  and  had  not  reported  him  to  the  accused,  or  requested  that  he  be  put  in  irons ; (8)  that  Mr. 
Webster  had  engaged  them  to  Avork  the  ship  to  New  York,  and  had  agreed  to  pay  him  one  dollar  and  a 
half  a day ; that  at  the.  time  of  his  engagement  the  engineer  of  the  Nicholas  Avas  not  present ; that  he  was 
engaged  by  Mr.  Webster,  the  latter  conversing  with  him  ; that  (9)  none  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas 
had  bottles  of  liquor ; none  of  the  crew  of  the  Nicholas  were  drunk  or  disorderly ; (10)  that  he  had  not 
engaged  to  run  the  blockade ; that’  no  part  of  his  wages  were  dependent  upon  a successful  trip ; (11)  that 
the  accused  was  intoxicated. 

The  court  will  recollect  the  particularity  with  A\diich  the  witness  denied  all  these  statements.  They 
Avill  also  recollect  how  each  one  of  these  statements  were,  at  other  stages  of  the  examination,  either  contra- 
dicted by  the  A\ritness  himself  or  by  other  witnesses. 

First.  He  was  not  on  duty  below  at  the  time  of  the  shooting.  (See  Guruan’s  testimony,  page  21.)  “ The 
watch  was  changed  after  Mr.  Webster  ordered  the  menon  deck.  O’Neill  went  with  them.”  (Webster’s 
testimony,  page  47.)  “ O’Neill  belonged  to  the  8 to  12  Avatch,”  page  4S.  “ At  the  time  of  shooting  it  was 

not  O’Neill’s  watch  below.  His  was  on  at  12  o’clock.” 


76 


Second.  That  he  had,  immediately  preceding  the  shooting,  banked  the  fires,  &c.  This  could  not  be 
true,  because  it  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses  that  the  shooting  took  place  after  the  arrival 
of  the  Nicholas  off  Wilmington,  between  2 and  3 o’clock.  O’Neill’s  watch  was  out  at  12  o’clock.  (See 
testimony  of  Gurnan,  Murphy,  and  Webster  to  this  effect.) 

Third.  That  he  went  into  the  hold  to  cool  himself  as  usual  under  the  ventilator..  This  cannot  be  true, 
as  there  was  no  ventilator.  (See  testimony  of  Gurnan,  page  IS.)  “ I do  not  recognize  the  ventilator  on 
plan.”  (Of  Webster,  page  48.)  “ There  was  no  ventilator.” 

Fourth.  He  and  the  crew  had  not  been  in  the  habit  .of  cooling  themselves  in  fore  hold.  He  had  no 
business  in  there.  (See  testimony  of  O’Neill,  page  9.)  “No  one  was  allowed  to  go  up  on  deck  or  come 
down,  else  I would  have  had  no  business  to  go  into  the  fore  hold.  I always  used  to  go  up  on  deck  to  cool 
myself.  I never  went  in  there  till  the  clay  of  capture.  I went  in  every  ten  minutes.”  (Testimony  of 
Gurnan,  page  21.)  “ The  men  used  to  cool  themselves  in  the  passage-way  between  the  fire  and  engine  rooms.” 

Fifth.  That  before  the  shooting  he  had  received  no  orders  from  the  accused  or  from  any  one  net 
to  go  into  the  fore  hold.  (See  testimony  of  Gurnan,  page  23.)  “ O’Neill  was  present  when  I gave  orders  not 

to  go  into  the  fore  hold.”  (Of  Webster,  page  47.)  ' “ Everson  ordered  O’Neill  to  remain  on  deck,  and  placed 
a guard  at  engine  and  fire  room  hatches.” 

Sixth.  That  he  was  not  drunk,  or  under  the  influence  of  liquor  at  any  time  on  the  day  of  the  capture. 
He  is  proved  to  be  drunk  (see  testimony  of  Gurnan,  page  16 ;)  “at  the  time  O’Neill  was  ordered  on  deck  he 
was  very  drunk  ; I am  certain  he  was  very  drunk.”  (Of  Webster,  page  46.)  “ All  the  officers  and  crew 

were  intoxicated — all  drunk,  (page  47;)  at  this  time  O’Neill  was  very  drunk;  this  was  about  an  hour  be- 
fore he  was  shot,  or  three-quarters  of  an  hour.”  (Of  Sawyer,  page  40.)  “O’Neill  was  drunk  when  he 
got  on  deck.”  And  of  Captain  Hooker,  as  to  the  statements  of  captain  and  officers  of  the  Nicholas, 
page  46. 

Seventh.  That  he  had  not  refused  or  hesitated  to  obey  the  orders  of  Mr.  Webster,  or  any  other  person 
belonging  to  the  Victoria;  that  there  had  been  no  drinking  in  the  engine  or  fire  room;  that  Mr.  Webster  had 
not  threatened  to  shoot  him  ; that  Gurnan  had  not  threatened  to  shoot  him ; that  W ebster  had  not  had  to 
shove  him  up  or  towards  the  ladder,  and  had  not  reported  him  to  the  accused,  or  requested  him  to  be  put  in 
irons.  (See  the  testimony  of  Webster  and  Gurnan;  Webster’s,  . pages  47,  48,  and  49;  Gurnan’s,  pages  14, 
15,  and  16.) 

Eighth.  That  Mr.  Webster  had  agreed  to  pay  him  a dollar  and  a half  a day  to  work  the  ship  to  New 
York  ; that  the  engineer  of  the  Nicholas  was  not  present,  &c.  (See  testimony  of  Webster,  page  50.)  “ I 

told  chief' engineer  we  had  no  authority  to  pay.  Had  no  conversation  with  O’Neill  about  working  the  vessel. 
I talked  with  the  engineer.  O’Neill  may  have  been  present  and  heard  what  I said.” 

Ninth.  That  none  of  the  officers  or  crew  of  the  Nicholas  had  liquor  or  bottles  of  it,  and  none  of  them 
drunk  or  disorderly.  (See  testimony  of  Gurnan,  Sawyer,  Hooker,  and  Webster.)  They  all  contradict  this 
statement  in  the  most  positive  terms. 

Tenth.  That  he  did  not  know  the  vessel  was  intended  to  run  the  blockade ; that  none  of  his  compensa- 
tion was  contingent  on  the  success  of  the  voyage.  (See  testimony  of  Murphy,  page  36)  who  testifies  that 
when  they  arrived  at  Nassau,  all  the  crew  could  have  left  the  Nicholas  if  so  disposed ; that  they  received 
c£3  15s.  a month  from  Liverpool  to  Nassau;  that  from  Nassau  they  were  to  receive  the  largely  increased 
compensation  of  o£10  per  month,  and  c£10  additional  if  successful ; that  this  was  agreed  to  be  paid  them  by 
Saunders,  of  Nassau  ; that  all  the  firemen  agreed  to  go,  and  before  agreeing  he  talked  the  matter  over  with 
O’Neill,  &c. 

Eleventh.  That  the.  accused  was  intoxicated  at  the  time  of  the  shooting.  That  the  accused  was  perfectly 
sober  on  the  day  of  the  capture,  and  was  never  intoxicated  to  the  knowledge  of  the  witnesses.  (See  testimony 
of  Hooker,  Sawyer,  and  Webster,  pages  41,  46,  49.) 

The  testimony  of  O’Neill  is  thus  proved  to  be  utterly  untrue,  contradictory  of  itself,  or  disproved  by  other 
witnesses,  in  many  points  about  which  the  court  will  remember  he  testified  in  the  most  positive  manner ; and 
as  he  is  also  proven  to  have  a direct  pecuniary  interest  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused,  and  to  have  endeavored 
to  instruct  the  witness  Murphy,  and  to  have  held  out  to  him  considerations  to  testify  on  this  trial,  the 
accused  feels  assured  his  testimony  will  have  but  little,  if  any,  weight  with  the  court.  As  to  the  testimony 


77 


of  the  only  other  witness  who  presumes  to  say  he  knows  of  the  shooting  from  personal  knowledge,  (Murphy,) 
the  accused  will  c intent  himself  by  calling  attention  to  his  testimony,  (page  33)  where  with  great  particu- 
larity he  describes  his  position,  that  of  O’Neill,  that  of  Gurnan,  and  that  of  the  accused  at  the  time  of  the 
shooting,  and  to  its  direct  contradiction  by  the  testimony  of  Gurnan  as  to  the  position  of  Murphy  at  the  time 
of  the  shooting.  (See  page  20.)  “When  I lit  the  lamp  in  the  fire-room,  Murphy  and  another  man  were  in 
there,”  (page  19.)  “ 1 could  not  see  O’Neill  from  where  I stood  at  the  time  of  the  shooting.  I was  in  the 

passage,  about  fifteen  feet  from  the  entrance  to  the  fore  hold.”  In  this  testimony,  either  Gurnan  tells  what 
is  false,  or  else  Murphy  did  not  see  O’Neill  or  the  accused  at  the  time  the  shooting  took  place,  for  Gurnan 
stood  in  the  exact  spot  where  Murphy  testifies  he  was.  If  the  latter  be  true,  and  in  favor  of  it  arc  all  the 
probabilities,  then  O’Neill,  an  interested  witness  pecuniarily,  one  who  is  the  real  prosecutor  in  this  case,  one 
who  is  proved  to  have  knowingly  violated  a law  of  his  own  country,  and  his  Queen’s  proclamation,  to  be 
guilty  of  a misdemeanor  and  subject  to  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  one  whose  testimony  on  many  material 
points  is  contradicted  by  himself  or  disproved  by  others,  is  the  only  person  whose  testimony  tends  to  inculpate 
the  accused. 

His  testimony  the  accused  feels  assured  will  be  considered  by  the  court  as  negatived  by  all  the  pro- 
babilities of  the  case,  so  that  the  accused,  on  trial  for  a crime,  will  be  awarded  all  the  presumptions  of 
innocence  which  the  law  wisely  accords  to  a person  who,  from  the  simple  fact  of  being  accused,  is  deprived 
of  the  right  to  testify  in  his  own  behalf. 

With  these  suggestions,  more  lengthy  than  the  accused  at  first  intended  they  should  be,  and  with  the 
repeated  suggestions  that  the  accused  is  not  being  tried  for  a crime  of  which  any  officer  of  his  own  govern- 
ment, who  was  acquainted  with  the  facts,  deemed  him  guilty,  but,  on  tbe  contrary,  perfectly  blameless,  the 
accused  submits  his  case  to  the  consideration  of  a court  composed  of  officers  of  the  navy  of  the  United  States, 
with  a full  assurance  that  their  finding  on  the  charges  and  specification  will  be  in  accordance  with  right  and 
justice,  and  that  the  accused  will  be  honorably  acquitted. 

ALFRED  EVERSON, 

Acting  Master  United  States  Navy. 

Navy  Yard,  New  York,  October  5,  1S64. 


' 


J 


/ 


